No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record – The Pause lengthens again – just in time for UN Summit in Paris

'The Pause lengthens yet again. One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all. With this month’s RSS (Remote Sensing Systems satellite) temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.'

As the faithful gather around their capering shamans in Paris for the New Superstition’s annual festival of worship, the Pause lengthens yet again. One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 9 months since February 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings have occurred during the period of the Pause.

The accidental delegate from Burma provoked shrieks of fury from the congregation during the final benediction in Doha three years ago, when he said the Pause had endured for 16 years. Now, almost three years later, the Pause is almost three years longer.

It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the persistence of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation. The reason for NOAA’s statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.

The steepness of this predicted response can be seen in Fig. 1a, which is based on a paper on temperature feedbacks by Professor Richard Lindzen’s former student Professor Gerard Roe in 2009. The graph of Roe’s model output shows that the initial expected response to a forcing is supposed to be an immediate and rapid warming. But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 9 months since February 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.

Figure 1a: Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring. Based on Roe (2009).

At the Heartland and Philip Foster events in Paris, I shall reveal in detail the three serious errors that have led the models to over-predict warming so grossly.

The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. However, if there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause may return at some time from the end of next year onward.

The hiatus period of 18 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

And yes, the start-date for the Pause has been inching forward, though just a little more slowly than the end-date, which is why the Pause continues on average to lengthen.

So long a stasis in global temperature is simply inconsistent not only with the extremist predictions of the computer models but also with the panic whipped up by the rent-seeking profiteers of doom rubbing their hands with glee in Paris.

The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).

Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to 1.1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to September 2015.

Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m–2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not exactly alarming.

As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur.

The Pause – politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the “official” scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism – is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.

The divergence between the models’ predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. If the Pause lengthens just a little more, the rate of warming in the quarter-century since the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 will fall below 1 C°/century equivalent.

Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), for the 309 months January 1990 to September 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at just 1.02 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v.6 satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.

As ever, the Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC’s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century. In a rational scientific discourse, those who had advocated extreme measures to prevent global warming would now be withdrawing and calmly rethinking their hypotheses. However, this is not a rational scientific discourse. On the questioners’ side it is rational: on the believers’ side it is a matter of increasingly blind faith. The New Superstition is no fides quaerens intellectum.

Key facts about global temperature

These facts should be shown to anyone who persists in believing that, in the words of Mr Obama’s Twitteratus, “global warming is real, manmade and dangerous”.

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 225 months from February 1997 to Octber 2015 – more than half the 442-month satellite record.

There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since the Pause began in February 1997.

The entire RSS dataset for the 442 months December 1978 to September 2015 shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.13 Cº per century.

Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

Compare the warming on the Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/century.

In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

The warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted close to thrice as much.

To meet the IPCC’s central prediction of 1 C° warming from 1990-2025, in the next decade a warming of 0.75 C°, equivalent to 7.5 C°/century, would have to occur.

Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than 15 years that has been measured since 1950.

The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century, or 1 C° in 430 years.

Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that.

Technical note

Our latest topical graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

The fact of a long Pause is an indication of the widening discrepancy between prediction and reality in the temperature record.

The satellite datasets are arguably less unreliable than other datasets in that they show the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets. The Great el Niño, like its two predecessors in the past 300 years, caused widespread global coral bleaching, providing an independent verification that the satellite datasets are better able than the rest to capture such fluctuations without artificially filtering them out.

Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on reference measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which provide an independent verification of the temperature measurements by checking via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.

The RSS graph (Fig. 1) is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.

The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line.

The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression, since summer temperatures in one hemisphere are compensated by winter in the other. Therefore, an AR(n) model would generate results little different from a least-squares trend.

Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.

Figure T1. Output of 33 IPCC models (turquoise) compared with measured RSS global temperature change (black), 1979-2014. The transient coolings caused by the volcanic eruptions of Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) are shown, as is the spike in warming caused by the great el Niño of 1998.

Dr Mears writes:

“The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.”

Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models, but he alleges “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph:

“Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?’ While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. … The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.”

In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is almost entirely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the not dissimilar spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself. The headline graph in these monthly reports begins in 1997 because that is as far back as one can go in the data and still obtain a zero trend.

Fig. T1a. Graphs for RSS and GISS temperatures starting both in 1997 and in 2001. For each dataset the trend-lines are near-identical, showing conclusively that the argument that the Pause was caused by the 1998 el Nino is false (Werner Brozek and Professor Brown worked out this neat demonstration).

Curiously, Dr Mears prefers the terrestrial datasets to the satellite datasets. The UK Met Office, however, uses the satellite data to calibrate its own terrestrial record.

The length of the Pause, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.

Sources of the IPCC projections in Figs. 2 and 3

IPCC’s First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:

“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”

That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. For the rate of global warming since 1990 – the most important of the “broad-scale features of climate change” that the models were supposed to predict – is now below half what the IPCC had then predicted.

In 1990, the IPCC said this:

“Based on current models we predict:

“under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 Cº per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 Cº to 0.5 Cº per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 Cº above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors” (p. xii).

Later, the IPCC said:

“The numbers given below are based on high-resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate of global mean warming of 1.8 Cº by 2030. For values consistent with other estimates of global temperature rise, the numbers below should be reduced by 30% for the low estimate or increased by 50% for the high estimate” (p. xxiv).

Because this difference between a straight line and the slight uptick in the warming rate the IPCC predicted over the period 1990-2025 is so small, one can look at it another way. To reach the 1 K central estimate of warming since 1990 by 2025, there would have to be twice as much warming in the next ten years as there was in the last 25 years. That is not likely.

But is the Pause perhaps caused by the fact that CO2 emissions have not been rising anything like as fast as the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A prediction in 1990? No: CO2 emissions have risen rather above the Scenario-A prediction (Fig. T3).

Figure T3. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, etc., in 2012, from Le Quéré et al. (2014), plotted against the chart of “man-made carbon dioxide emissions”, in billions of tonnes of carbon per year, from IPCC (1990).

Plainly, therefore, CO2 emissions since 1990 have proven to be closer to Scenario A than to any other case, because for all the talk about CO2 emissions reduction the fact is that the rate of expansion of fossil-fuel burning in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc., far outstrips the paltry reductions we have achieved in the West to date.

True, methane concentration has not risen as predicted in 1990 (Fig. T4), for methane emissions, though largely uncontrolled, are simply not rising as the models had predicted. Here, too, all of the predictions were extravagantly baseless.

The overall picture is clear. Scenario A is the emissions scenario from 1990 that is closest to the observed CO2 emissions outturn.

Figure T4. Methane concentration as predicted in four IPCC Assessment Reports, together with (in black) the observed outturn, which is running along the bottom of the least prediction. This graph appeared in the pre-final draft of IPCC (2013), but had mysteriously been deleted from the final, published version, inferentially because the IPCC did not want to display such a plain comparison between absurdly exaggerated predictions and unexciting reality.

To be precise, a quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.27 Cº, equivalent to little more than 1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s central estimate of 0.71 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990) with “substantial confidence” was approaching three times too big. In fact, the outturn is visibly well below even the least estimate.

In 1990, the IPCC’s central prediction of the near-term warming rate was higher by two-thirds than its prediction is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. T5 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.

Is the ocean warming?

One frequently-discussed explanation for the Great Pause is that the coupled ocean-atmosphere system has continued to accumulate heat at approximately the rate predicted by the models, but that in recent decades the heat has been removed from the atmosphere by the ocean and, since globally the near-surface strata show far less warming than the models had predicted, it is hypothesized that what is called the “missing heat” has traveled to the little-measured abyssal strata below 2000 m, whence it may emerge at some future date.

Actually, it is not known whether the ocean is warming: each of the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys takes just three measurements a month in 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean – roughly a 100,000-square-mile box more than 316 km square and 2 km deep. Plainly, the results on the basis of a resolution that sparse (which, as Willis Eschenbach puts it, is approximately the equivalent of trying to take a single temperature and salinity profile taken at a single point in Lake Superior less than once a year) are not going to be a lot better than guesswork.

Unfortunately ARGO seems not to have updated the ocean dataset since December 2014. However, what we have gives us 11 full years of data. Results are plotted in Fig. T5. The ocean warming, if ARGO is right, is equivalent to just 0.02 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.2 Cº century–1.

Figure T5. The entire near-global ARGO 2 km ocean temperature dataset from January 2004 to December 2014 (black spline-curve), with the least-squares linear-regression trend calculated from the data by the author (green arrow).

The terrifying-sounding heat content change of 260 ZJ from 1970 to 2014 (Fig. T6) is equivalent to just 0.2 K/century of global warming. All those “Hiroshima bombs of heat” of which the climate-extremist websites speak are a barely discernible pinprick. The ocean and its heat capacity are a lot bigger than some may realize.

Figure T6. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, in Zettajoules from NOAA’s NODC Ocean Climate Lab: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT, with the heat content values converted back to the ocean temperature changes in Kelvin that were originally measured. NOAA’s conversion of the minuscule warming data to Zettajoules, combined with the exaggerated vertical aspect of the graph, has the effect of making a very small change in ocean temperature seem considerably more significant than it is.

Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change reveals an interesting discrepancy between NOAA’s data and that of the ARGO system. Over the period of ARGO data, from 2004-2014, the NOAA data imply that the oceans are warming at 0.05 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.5 Cº century–1, or rather more than double the rate shown by ARGO.

ARGO has the better-resolved dataset, but since the resolutions of all ocean datasets are very low one should treat all these results with caution.

What one can say is that, on such evidence as these datasets are capable of providing, the difference between underlying warming rate of the ocean and that of the atmosphere is not statistically significant, suggesting that if the “missing heat” is hiding in the oceans it has magically found its way into the abyssal strata without managing to warm the upper strata on the way.

On these data, too, there is no evidence of rapid or catastrophic ocean warming.

Furthermore, to date no empirical, theoretical or numerical method, complex or simple, has yet successfully specified mechanistically either how the heat generated by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas enrichment of the atmosphere has reached the deep ocean without much altering the heat content of the intervening near-surface strata or how the heat from the bottom of the ocean may eventually re-emerge to perturb the near-surface climate conditions relevant to land-based life on Earth.

Figure T7. Near-global ocean temperatures by stratum, 0-1900 m, providing a visual reality check to show just how little the upper strata are affected by minor changes in global air surface temperature. Source: ARGO marine atlas.

Most ocean models used in performing coupled general-circulation model sensitivity runs simply cannot resolve most of the physical processes relevant for capturing heat uptake by the deep ocean.

Ultimately, the second law of thermodynamics requires that any heat which may have accumulated in the deep ocean will dissipate via various diffusive processes. It is not plausible that any heat taken up by the deep ocean will suddenly warm the upper ocean and, via the upper ocean, the atmosphere.

If the “deep heat” explanation for the Pause were correct (and it is merely one among dozens that have been offered), the complex models have failed to account for it correctly: otherwise, the growing discrepancy between the predicted and observed atmospheric warming rates would not have become as significant as it has.

In early October 2015 Steven Goddard added some very interesting graphs to his website. The graphs show the extent to which sea levels have been tampered with to make it look as though there has been sea-level rise when it is arguable that in fact there has been little or none.

Why were the models’ predictions exaggerated?

In 1990 the IPCC predicted – on its business-as-usual Scenario A – that from the Industrial Revolution till the present there would have been 4 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing caused by Man (Fig. T8):

Figure T8. Predicted manmade radiative forcings (IPCC, 1990).

However, from 1995 onward the IPCC decided to assume, on rather slender evidence, that anthropogenic particulate aerosols – mostly soot from combustion – were shading the Earth from the Sun to a large enough extent to cause a strong negative forcing. It has also now belatedly realized that its projected increases in methane concentration were wild exaggerations. As a result of these and other changes, it now estimates that the net anthropogenic forcing of the industrial era is just 2.3 Watts per square meter, or little more than half its prediction in 1990 (Fig. T9):

Even this, however, may be a considerable exaggeration. For the best estimate of the actual current top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (total natural and anthropo-genic net forcing) is only 0.6 Watts per square meter (Fig. T10):

In short, most of the forcing predicted by the IPCC is either an exaggeration or has already resulted in whatever temperature change it was going to cause. There is little global warming in the pipeline as a result of our past and present sins of emission.

It is also possible that the IPCC and the models have relentlessly exaggerated climate sensitivity. One recent paper on this question is Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2015), which found climate sensitivity to be in the region of 1 Cº per CO2 doubling (go to scibull.com and click “Most Read Articles”). The paper identified errors in the models’ treatment of temperature feedbacks and their amplification, which account for two-thirds of the equilibrium warming predicted by the IPCC.

Professor Ray Bates gave a paper in Moscow in summer 2015 in which he concluded, based on the analysis by Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011) (Fig. T10), that temperature feedbacks are net-negative. Accordingly, he supports the conclusion both by Lindzen & Choi (1990) (Fig. T11) and by Spencer & Braswell (2010, 2011) that climate sensitivity is below – and perhaps considerably below – 1 Cº per CO2 doubling.

A growing body of reviewed papers find climate sensitivity considerably below the 3 [1.5, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling that was first put forward in the Charney Report of 1979 for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and is still the IPCC’s best estimate today.

On the evidence to date, therefore, there is no scientific basis for taking any action at all to mitigate CO2 emissions.

Finally, how long will it be before the Freedom Clock (Fig. T12) reaches 20 years without any global warming? If it does, the climate scare will become unsustainable.

You show clearly that the actions or substances do not “force” the “climate” to do anything.

Why then call the actions or substances “forcings?”

For example: “Models predict rapid initial warming in response to a forcing. Instead, no warming at all is occurring”

If no warming at all is occurring, then there was no “forcing,” was there?

Call it man-made CO2, call it man-made methane, call it man-made soot. But do not call it a “forcing” if there was no effect.

monckton

Note the word “instead” in the cited passage.

The observed facts do not tell us there was no forcing. They tell us there may or may not have been a forcing, and that, if there was one, it was outweighed by other forcings in the opposite direction.

bigterguy

Kent is right.

“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals

Not a pause that implies future warming, a plateau. Not climate change, anthropogenic global warming. Etc

CB

“Not a pause that implies future warming, a plateau.”

lol! Nope. Neither a plateau nor a pause. Continued warming. You could try to redefine the word “warming” to mean “cooling”, but I think most people might find that a bit too Orwellian for their tastes…

Yes, there is one study that has found Antarctica is gaining ice, but it is contradicted by other studies.

The rest of your post is nonsense.

If the findings of the study were correct, they suggest the meltdown of Greenland is more than offsetting that gain, and that the gain is declining.

If you understand the polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, why would this surprise you?

“The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” “

…but this propaganda piece isn’t about soccer, pumpkin. It’s about global warming. If you think there’s a stronger driver of planetary temperature than CO₂, name that driver and point to a single moment in Earth’s history it caused polar ice sheets to form with CO₂ as high as we have today.

…and you cross out the negative number and add an arrow pointing up!!! No pumpkin, GRACE shows a decline in ice. No amount of photoshopping is gonna change that. Now why are you running like a coward from my question? When did some other climate driver override the warming effect of CO₂?

”…If the findings of the study were correct, they suggest the meltdown of Greenland is more than offsetting that gain, and that the gain is declining.…”

Previously, warmer ocean waters have melted Greenland’s glaciers on-contact. Now, many glaciers have retreated away from direct contact with the oceans, (which reduces the influence of “warmer” water). Now, only the air temperature has a bearing on the ice. As we all know, but some of us won’t acknowledge, average global air temperature hasn’t been “warming” (RSS, UAH).

Recent observations have stated that the ice is no longer reaching the sea: “…the fact that most of the glaciers are land terminating…” (Sutterley, Tyler C., et al. 2014, “Evaluating Greenland…”). In the summer of 2008, observations indicated this was not the case, then: “The recent rapid increase in mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet … cause of this acceleration is increased melting at the ice–ocean interface” (Straneo, Fiammetta, et al. 2010 “Rapid circulation of warm subtropical waters in a major glacial fjord in East Greenland.”Nature Geoscience)

Clouds cool the earth, and form, preferentially, when the sea surface temperature rises above a particular value. However, clouds also interfere with infrared transfer, much as greenhouse gases do. How well do the climatologists understand the infrared interference of clouds? Piss poor. Discounting the albedo effect, discounting the latent heat effect, the inaccuracy of “knowing” the value of the long-wave (infrared) effect is way too large to support the “energy budget” of ¾W/m^2 of “Global Warming”:https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/928cbff5932793c5cdc98b3da4b74a287e33b1ad500c0c35440492d91c7706d1.jpg

I think images are a very effective way to get a point across, actually, even if it’s just a graph! VooDude does tend to go overboard though, to be sure. It’s like sundried tomatoes: A little goes a long way.

That Rules for Radicals bit is funny. It seems the number one distributor was Dick Armey giving it to his FreedomWorks minions, sort of as here’s what works, maybe we can use similar methods. The earlier Cato Institute suggested use of “Leninist” propaganda (and implied soft sabotage) was at least reworded into the 1996 Newt Gingrich/Frank Luntz GoPac memo (to hide its communist tactics, maybe) “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control”

Instead of going to all that work disguising the origin, Armey blames Saul Alinsky for using the tactics, while making sure his people know what the tactics are so they can use them, too.

Robert

Good analysis! Thanks!

Mobius Loop

Yes, Kent makes a valid point, you would should probably get your language light e.g. “tamperature datasets” is either an incorrect spelling or an embarrassingly bad pun to include in a ‘serious’ scientific discussion.

planet8788

Very accurate pun actually.

Robert

And not a single source. Not a single example… Wonder why…
“other forcings in the opposite direction.”

monckton

Five datasets are cited. Try learning to read.

Robert

“Try learning to read” indeed.

“other forcings in the opposite direction.”,

List them.
Show us the range the research has found

You know; support your claims. Like 7th graders know to do: best resources, quotes, citations.

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

Relevance

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

Authority

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?

Accuracy

Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic?

Purpose

Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?

The five datasets are plainly cited. And if “Robert” is unaware that “mainstream” science has tried to blame the Pause on two dozen mutually inconsistent types of forcing that are said to countervail against the supposedly large forcing from CO2, then he has only to read the second of my two papers in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, where he will find 25 such papers listed. That, and not in a blog infested by climate Communists, is the place for citations.

Robert

Then it should be no problem quoting yourself . Where you list the “other forcings in the opposite direction.”,

Asked and answered. And where is the evidence that the forcings listed in IPCC’s chart, which differ in major respects from earlier such charts, are accurate?

Robert

Ah.. countering with an new, different, unsupported assertion…
We want to give thanks for the continuation of posting unsupported assertions, it helps show the denialists’ lack of science.

“differ in major respects ”

monckton

When I refer to the earlier IPCC graphs, I expect people not to tell me that my assertion that there are major differences between the earlier graphs and the present graph is “unsupported”. It is supported by simply looking at the 2007 and 2013 versions of the graph of forcings. Do that, and go figure.

Well Done

The term “forcing” is intended to give the impression that man’s CO2 is somehow “forcing” the climate to do something it otherwise wouldn’t. Make no mistake, these creeps use linguistics like that. They will NEVER admit that, either.

ChocoCatSF

Can’t fool smart people like you

Robert

Should have added a /s. Here on climdep, some people don’t always get it without a sign.

Good lord when will this new facism end!! The worst president ever…the biggest science swindle of all time! Feels like life in a fun house when our president says this is the greatest national security threat, where his administration purposely and flagrantly use almost every federal resource to breach the Constitution and make a mockery of this proud , generous, beacon of liberty that so much blood was spilled for. People, I know most of you are like minded, but this is not just the misuse of science on the line, it’s something that makes the conspiracy theorist seem like the credible historians

jmac

The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science. Even Exxon and the Koch bros with unlimited resources have been unable to produce a credible study that disproves man made climate change. In fact, both of their studies came to the same conclusion as the consensus.

The only thing they have left is to attempt to create doubt; which takes time away from creating viable methods for mitigation, adaption to lessen the damage that is coming. Intentionally delaying the process for mitigation and adaption, so that fossil fuel boys can extend their profits, is a crime that will affect people, countries and economies.

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

Well Done

Lying dip. Fossil fuel companies are not responsible for society using fossil fuel. Creeps like you are just trying to demonize them so we’ll accept your harsh tax-and-spend punishments.
Won’t work, fool.
Watch your back.

Mobius Loop

That’s jest plain bad advice, ah done gone and hurt ma neck!

jmac

Any fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. The Department of Justice has a moral obligation to prosecute Exxon and its co-conspirators accordingly.

This scandal—traveling under the hashtag #exxonknew—is just beginning to build. The Inside Climate News series of six pieces is set to conclude this week and be published as a book, but the LA Times apparently has far more reporting waiting to be released.

The investigation truly came home, when the The Dallas Morning News—read across the oil patch and hometown paper for Exxon—put the ICN investigation on its front page.

Yes, Apparently far right wingers think the lives of people on earth is “meaningless” as long as there is money to be made.

planet8788

YOu still haven’t cited a single relevant quote… I’m waiting. Point me to a single smoking gun.

jmac

Oh, you must be confused. I’m not trying to convince you. That would be futile. I hope you rot in hell. I’m trying to show others the evidence.

If you’re a hardcore climate change denier, it must be rather demoralizing to learn that ExxonMobil’s own scientists expressed contempt for your views behind your back. If you’ve lost ExxonMobil’s own scientists, you’ve lost the scientific debate.

planet8788

You aren’t showing any evidence moron. That’s my point. You keep posting the same two meaningless links. You wouldn’t know science if it bit you in the nose.

jmac

You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

Tyler Durden

There is no hard evidence of CAGW – not then, not now. There is only conjecture, which carries no weight in court. I say bring ’em in to court on both sides – Exxon, Tom Karl, Jag Shukla – under oath and cross examined. Get the truth out. End of the day it will be Karl and Shukla and a few others on trial for treason. And how sweet that day will be.

planet8788

But they just want to think they are saving the world. Is there anything wrong with that ?

Tyler Durden

Not a bit – as long as they are not stealing my money and weakening the national security of my country to do it.

jmac

So, Exxon knows you are full of BS, yet you don’t?

Robert

“…no hard evidence…
. . .
…will be.”

jmac

No doubt Exxon with all their lawyers can tie this up for years, just as tobacco did. But with the former Exxon scientist coming forward along with the documents, the noose is tightening.

“Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation” The fossil fuel industry—like the tobacco industry before it—is noteworthy for its use of active, intentional disinformation and deception to support its political aims and maintain its lucrative profits. The following case studies show that:

The tobacco cases also set precedent, the exxon case may go a bit faster what with the data collected, the world view, ….

Tyler Durden

With tobacco there were millions of deaths each year, both smokers and non smokers, which provided hard data showing the difference between smoking and not smoking. There is no such thing with cli sci. There is no parallel universe earth with no human fossil fuel emissions to compare. Thus conclusions are conjecture only – no real data to point to. Cli Sci claims against Exxon will be laughed out of court so fast it will make even your thick head spin bobby. Cli Sci is just another ridiculous cult religion.

Robert

Sorry, but we have nearly two centuries of research spanning the globe and spanning millennia. Science done by scientists working in countries around the world. Data and its analysis that is accepted by virtual every scientific organization and government .

Your claims, on the other hand, are good examples of rhetoric. Blog inspired rhetoric. Thanks for showing us how thinon science the denialist position it.

Tyler Durden

Hell of a lot of good money wasted on this crap, that’s for sure. The only thing those wasted dollars have done is create a swarm of leeches that suck down ever more public funds to create more leeches. Time to call the exterminator. His name is Trump. It’s gonna be a great show, get some popcorn and enjoy!

planet8788

Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Usethe CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your reserch!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Yes bring on the RICO charges against this current administration and their czars. Been lied to by O, one too many times.

Rosario Barahona

‎

.❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the lap-top❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
3gai………
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorldEmploymentVacanciesReportExpo/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

Gregson14

This has been the most current and transformative set of IPCC projected vs actual data comparisons that I have seen to date. The fallacy of the IPCC’s recent (AR-5) warming projections of 2.5-4.5 degrees/century are still shown to be gross over-estimates and the obvious conclusions imply that much of our current “climate angst” is being driven by a false narrative that threatens our emotional and existential security on a daily basis.

Mobius Loop

Which would all be very well if the evidence wasn’t stacking up to show that climate change continues:

Here is a recent graph showing the rise in average global temperatures provided by NASA:

The heat is hiding deep in the ocean depths…..like Godzilla. We are doomed.

planet8788

No. They will scream louder and adjust the surface temperature record some more…. just like they always have done.

Common Sense

They can’t adjust it anymore and everyday the projections get further away from the observations. At some point it will be clear to everyone that their is no runaway warming. I think when the Arctic sea ice is back within 1sd then this thing is over. The Arctic sea ice is the easiest way for everyday people to see that nothing is happening. Within five years CAGW will be a punchline and Gore, Hansen, and their ilk will be completely discredited.

Mobius Loop

Interesting to read your statement that Arctic sea ice is the easiest way for everyday people to see that nothing is happening.

Hey, even better lets add them up, so in a 35 year period we have 27 years of no ice loss, or put another way, only 8 years of ice loss.

Clearly this is an accurate reflection of what the overall graph tells us.

Please don’t interpret this as serious and start spreading it as a meme!

planet8788

You just explained how there are roughly 60 year cylces in temperature… Now you are focusing on 30 years with ice…. We’re at the bottom of the cycle… And record ice growth in the South Pole. cognitive dissonance much?

Common Sense

Why doesn’t your graph include satellite data from the early seventies?

Mobius Loop

I’m thinking its because……

“The passive microwave sea ice record dates back to 1979, one of the longest environmental data sets we know of.”

The people that wrote the 1990 I.P.C.C. report felt that the early seventies data was important….they included it in their report. It shows that the ice extent was as low as it is today in the early seventies.

Mobius Loop

Well this is the only IPCC (or any) reference I can find to earlier 1970 ice which doesn’t seem to bear that out.

Drat, you got me there, I thought we were doing something fair like comparing like for like.

Soooooo, if you are deluded or deceitful or intellectually challenged enough to compare SUMMER ice in 1974 with WINTER ice in 2012 in order to scrape together the festering bones of an argument that there is no evidence of warming….

…. when to anyone with eyes to see its clear that your graph shows the consistent decline of Arctic sea ice over a quarter of a century, then there is little that any rational person can say…..

…. other than to observe that comparing snowballs with sun cream is unlikely to provide any sensible answer.

Mobius Loop

Well again no, because despite the fact that in his argument Mr Monckton is cherry picking cherry picked cherries, he then has to go on and admit (and you can almost hear the embarrassed “er” and shuffling of feet)….

“From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. However, IF there is a following la Niña, as there often is, the Pause MAY return at some time from the end of next year onward.”

Even when he turns his back to the other data sets and shouts blah, blah, blah I can’t hear you he knows that his argument if failing.

However, never one to let reality get in the way, Mr Monckton immediately suggests ignoring any such rise as a short term blip, presumably even while he still grips in desperation to 1998 as a reflection of the norm.

planet8788

Nothing to be embarassed about at all. Except the failed models. The surface temp record is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias

Mobius Loop

The surface temp record is nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias….. except that THE surface temperature record is actually four surface temperature records prepared by four independent organizations in three different countries all of which are mostly arriving at similar conclusions:

1940 used to be a lot hotter than 1980. What happened. See hansen et al. 1981

Mobius Loop

If you expect a response then please provide a link to whatever is twisting the elastic in your undergarments.

Mobius Loop

Well no, because Mr Monckton is using a highly selective presentation of information to distort the overall picture.

Note that he says, “The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset.”….. but does not show you the actual data, this is for the simple reason that its clear to anyone looking at it that the UAH data set shows warming across the period during which Mr Monckton categorically states in his banner headline that there has been NO WARMING:

He for anyone interested in reality and not ideological illusion is the missing graph:

And it freezes back every year. There is no long term trend that is driven by CO2. If there was then how could the ice rebound when CO2 is at a record high.

Mobius Loop

And that is probably the closest we will come to agreement.

It is very unlikely that there will be any rebound, what has happened within the past few years is within the limits of the type of natural variation that can be clearly seen on the records dating back 25+ years.

If you came back in 10 years and the ice was still growing, you would have a strong argument, but at present you have nothing.

Common Sense

The whole thing is within natural variation. Which is why the volume was just as low in the early seventies or the thirties. Think about it.

Mobius Loop

If you really, really, really think that you can compare summer ice in 1974 with winter ice in 2012 then you are not competent.

I hope for your sake that you don’t think that, and this is an elaborate joke. One way or the other, my part in our ‘conversation’ is at an end.

Common Sense

The truth hurts. You should be happy that there isn’t a crisis.

Mobius Loop

You win.

We have entered a zone were basic laws of reality no longer apply.

I can’t raise any argument against a comment stupid enough to look at a sheep and insist its a piece of candy floss.

Common Sense

Calling me names won’t change the fact that the ice is still there.

jmac

Even Exxon knows that’s BS.

The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths (like the authors) to mislead the public on the science.

Common Sense

Someone should tell the Arctic sea ice that refuses to melt.

jmac

Looks like it is melting just fine to me. Even Exxon knows that.

Common Sense

No it is actually rebounding and it is at the same level as forty years ago.

jmac

It’s tough on the sociopath deniers with no values that don’t care about the lives of others and want to create doubt on the science, when even Exxon is calling BS on you. Hope you all rot in hell.

You’re thick the ice was just as low in the early seventies or the thirties. It is cyclical. It has nothing to do with CO2 levels. Do you have any idea just how cold it is up there?

jmac

It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change.

If anyone has some credible study that will disprove man made climate science, they would have no problem getting funding from Exxon et. al. to complete the study and publish it in credible journals. That research would be worth billions maybe even trillions to the fossil fuel boys.

Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

How can anyone not know that? The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

Yes we have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s that started well before the broad use of hydrocarbons. We are not warming at a faster rate than any of the previous warm periods (Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm, medieval Warm) since the end of the last great ice age around 12,000 years ago. In fact we are cooler than those previous warm periods. The Earth is always either warming or cooling, it is rarely static and unchanging. Just because it warms doesnt mean it was caused by man, it is what our planet does. Do you see any periods of unchanging temp on the graph below?

jmac

It’s never been about the science. Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS. Monckton is a paid killer for the fossil fuel boys.

JMAC it is not BS, it is factual do a little research for yourself about historic temperatures throughout the Holocene (last 12,000 years). Look how warm it was during the Holocene optimum compared to today, and not related to CO2. Or go farther back and look at temp variations since we entered into the great ice age 800,000 years ago. Look how warm it was during the last inter-glacial period (EEmian). It was 3-4 degrees warmer than we are currently and it wasn’t due to CO2, it was natural. So we are being told that recent warming is unprecedented when it isn’t even close to the truth, the whole subject has been politicized. I don’t endorse Monckton any more than I do AL Gore. I have a brain for myself and can research for myself, plus degrees in Geology and Geophysics and I have studied past climates for over 30 years. We cant make a judgment on 100 years of highly adjusted temperature data when our earth has 5 billion years of constant change. 40 or 50 years of warming consistent with past warming is no more significant than 40 or 50 years of cooling.

jmac

BS even Exxon knows your BS is just BS.

VR

prove me wrong instead of just typing an idiotic response. Is that all you got?

That aside, there are elements of truth in what you say but a lot of effort has been expended in the years since Callendar suggested the idea of AGW in the late 1930’s to unpick natural and anthropocentric strands of climate change. Your blunt assertion is starkly contradicted by almost every major scientific institution on Earth.

Note their links to other organizations that agree with their position.

VR

My assertions on past Holocene & ice age temperatures are fact, just research temperature reconstruction from ice core data, it is extremely well accepted science. Research the Roman and Minoan warm periods as compared to today. The so called consensus doesn’t change what I stated, it is accurate. My point is the Earth’s climate is and has always been highly variable, and much more than what we see today. I maintain the recent 20th century warming is dominantly natural as it started before the broad use of hydrocarbons, but I don’t deny mans activity has had some influence on that warming and we should continue to stride to reduce our impact on the planet. On top of that there are multiple factors that influence warming/cooling on our planet including Green House Gas, Earths orbit/Milankovitch cycles, Solar Irradiance, Ocean currents (PDO/ADO), winds, dust, volcanic activity, etc. CO2 is 400 ppm (0.04%) of our atmosphere and mans contribution is roughly 5% of that, and the computer models that predict warming are continually overstated because they rely too much on the influence of CO2. Its almost impossible to solve a complex equation with so many variables. Look at this article http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/89054 from MIT Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary
Sciences and it is examining computer projections of warming vs the satellite temperature data. In summary it says the models overstate heating. Also when they remove other natural factors from the recent satellite temperature data, specifically volcanic cooling and El Nino warming there is virtually no warming shown since 1993 (Figure 1 C). This article is also co-authored by NASA/GISS with the aim of trying to explain why there has been no significant warming in the L. Troposphere since the late 1990s despite rising levels of CO2, and that is a fact. And finally consensus doesn’t change the debate, the foundation of science is debate, especially a subject as complex as out earths climate. True science is never settled, as Einstein said ” No amount of experimentation can prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong”.

Mobius Loop

Thank you for putting in the effort to make a serious point. As its a complicated subject, I’ll break my response into a series of posts:

CO2 is probably the best place to start. The amount of natural CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly in equilibrium i.e. the amount being generated closely matches that absorbed.

Your observation about 5% human generated CO2 is WILDLY misleading. The figure is not fixed, instead human beings are adding a (relatively) small amount of CO2 each year that gets added to and builds up in the system.

This graph by NASA shows nearly half a million years of a carbon cycle that rises and falls though approx 110ppm repeating approximate every 100,000 years. Then right at the end, (the part that is alarming scientists) …. in less than 50 years human activity has almost doubled the range of variation and reconfigured the atmosphere in a way that has never been encountered by human beings.

Any scientists who can look at the NASA chart and advise with a straight face that this is not a potential concern is not telling you the truth. This concern is real and it is not new. In 1965 scientists were already delivery the following prescient warning Lyndon Johnson:

I appreciate the discussion. Your chart goes back only 400,000 years which does encompass humans on this planet, but is a small fraction of earth’s history. But I agree what man has put in the atmosphere is in addition to the natural carbon cycle, and how it behaves after that point is really not well understood, but 400 ppm is not unprecedented (see below). One other human factor is the vast deforestation that has occurred particularly in the rain forests, and would of had capacity to absorb additional CO2, but you don’t really hear much about that side of the equation. My point is that 20th century warming is consistent with cyclical recent warming periods of the Holcene, and is less in magnitude and equal in slope/rate; so to place the warming on man alone is not logical. What would you say was the cause of recent (last 10,000 years) past warming and cooling events? Are those factors still in place today? What was the cause of the extreme warming at the end of the last ice age when temps rose 13-15 degrees C and sea level rose 300ft, and caused vast ice sheets to retreat to the poles? That was only 12,000 years ago, a virtual blink of the eye in geologic time.

But also keep in mind that the temperature effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic, not linear. There are many technical papers that support this. So the first molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere has a greater heat absorptive capacity than the second, and so on. If it were linear the earth would have overheated long ago when CO2 was much higher than today, and if CO2 was the only driver of heat. The chart below (i hope it shows thru) goes back 600 million years when CO2 was well above 1000 ppm, and there is a disconnect between heat and CO2. Also note how low the CO2 concentration is now as compared to the last 800 million years. Graphs in regards to this subject can be very misleading as it really depends on your starting point. Here is a link to my graph if it doesn’t post.

I ran across this article a few months back and I found it very interesting. It is from the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) at Lawrence Livermore/MIT and GISS (no lightweights). Title is :” Volcanic Contribution to Decadal Changes in Tropospheric Temperature” by BD Santer et.al. The goal was to compare climate models to the satellite temperature records, but after statistically removing the ENSO and volcanic events that have a strong influence (positive and negative) on global temps over that time.So basically they were looking for temp trends from GHG, and other factors. Figure 1C on page 22 shows the satellite LT temp trend with ENSO and volcanic events removed (~1degreeC/100 years), and shows no warming since 1993. One of their conclusions is ” We show that climate model simulations without early 21st century volcanic forcing overestimate the tropospheric warming observed
since 1998.” I found this article very significant but rarely have seen it referenced. Any thoughts or comments?

I do wonder for how much longer the CAGW zealots will be able to keep presenting their ‘science’ as fact in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sooner or later even they will have to realise the game is up and the ruse has been rumbled.

I dunno, with the likes of the BBC’s pro-CAGW hive-mind mentality (and most other msm in the western hemisphere at least) perhaps they’ll get another five years out of the deception. Another five years of stealing taxpayer’s money to fund their on-going research into faeries and unicorns. It defies all common sense.

Mobius Loop

Which might be a valid question if Mr Monckton was showing the whole picture (i.e. telling the truth), but he is choosing a single data set showing just one part of the atmosphere and playing down the parts which don’t support his viewpoint.

Here is NASA’s take on whether or not the world has warmed since 1998:

The scientists when I was there were making a genuine effort to understand the science. By the late 1970s, global warming was no longer speculative. There was direct evidence it was not the same type of carbon that was in the atmosphere a hundred years ago. We were looking for something that was a uniquely Exxon contribution to the science, and we had discussions with scientists at Columbia Univ

What was the nature of Exxon’s research into climate change?

At the time, the work had only just begun in earnest to really understand the problem rather than make broad-based estimates. If we were to figure out how much atmospheric carbon levels had changed, we needed to know how much CO2 the ocean was absorbing. The ocean, when it gets cold, absorbs CO2, but when it gets warm it releases it, just like a seltzer bottle that’s warm will bubble over.

How did you go about measuring carbon levels in the middle of the sea?

Exxon had a fleet of oil tankers traveling back and forth across the oceans. The great thing was the ships always ran the same routes. So we designed the equipment and installed it on board. You could make measurements as the ship was going back and forth, measuring CO2 levels in both the water and in the air at different points in time.ersity, where I was studying….

What is your point. Anyone with basic chemistry knowledg3 knows that water absorbs CO2. Basic water like the ocean even more. It then forms carbonate salts and falls to the bottom of the ocean. Making limestone.

planet8788

Seriously, do you think this is some kind of smoking gun? Everyone knows when you burn carbon you get more CO2 and it has to go somewhere. And your link didn’t work for me. But your posts is so idiotic and entertaining, I can’t wait to find out the rest of this spellbinding interview… LOL.

Bear in mind, that I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. That would be futile. I’m trying to show the evidence to everyone else. In fairness, you’re probably doing a pretty good job all by yourself of convincing people of how even Exxon knows your BS is just BS.

In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease.

As this report documents, the two disinformation campaigns are strikingly similar. ExxonMobil has drawn upon the tactics and even some of the organizations and actors involved in the callous disinformation campaign the tobacco industry waged for 40 years.

Again. what in that article is a smoking gun. It’s basic chemistry. It is barely even negative as the chemical engineer says the ocean wasn’t playing as big a role as they thought.
What were you trying to convince anybody with that article?
Does Exxon control the satellites that show no warming for 18 years.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH THE TEMPERATURE RECORD HAS BEEN ALTERED JUST SINCE 1981. 1890-1980 warming has tripled since 1981. DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Do you research? Read Hansen et. al. 1981. Look at the global temperature chart in that paper…. compare it to today’s… It is completely unrecognizable… Why do you think that is? Because Hansen is an unbiased scientist who hasn’t been arrested three times or more?

jmac

Even Google knows your BS is just BS.

Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

What reviewed papers on climate change has Google’s chairman authored?

Mobius Loop

I’m guessing not one in China.

monckton

It is indeed unlikely that the chairman of Google has had even one, let alone two, papers published in the prestigious bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. For one who seems head-bangingly fascinated by authority, citing the chairman of Google as an authority seems odd.

Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm at anything like the predicted rate.

Mobius Loop

I’m afraid you are getting a bit befuddled old pudding, I think you are talking about jmac.

….. and what was that you were saying about expected warming? Oh yes …….

“The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. ”

….. by which time we might expect to see actually temperatures running close to the heart of the modeled range, at least for a while, as no one with any knowledge or sense would expect a complex system tor progress smoothly without variation.

monckton

Why do you paid climate-Communist trolls, who bully everyone who dares to question the Party Line in the hope of deterring others who would otherwise have spoken out by now, fail to quote even the head posting properly? As that posting clearly demonstrates, even a large el Nino will not be at all likely to bring the temperature trend since 1990 anywhere close even to the least warming rate that was then predicted.

Mobius Loop

I’m guessing not one in China.

planet8788

Nope there wasn’t anything more than this earth-shattering news that water absorbs CO2… Wow. How informative. Dumbed down so even a 5th grader is totally dubious to any significance. WOW. Clearly you never studied chemistry. That’s about the first thing you learn. Why the DI water you use has a pH of 5.5 or so instead of 7.

jmac

So, Exxon knows you are full of BS, yet you don’t? Am I right?

The deniers are just ignorant or immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit. I hope they all rot in hell for delaying meaningful action on an issue that is a danger to all of us on this planet.

planet8788

You are the ones killing Africans by not letting them have real power supplies… Global warming hasn’t killed anyone. Not a single person… It’s probably saved thousands by not freezing them to death. The CLIMASTROLOGISTS are the murderers.

You are so clueless you couldn’t even tell that the article was totally informationless.

jmac

Even Google knows you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

Another leftist who also likes importing cheap labor from other countries. Another globalist in short. Another liar. Another fool. Another commie just like you.

jmac

“commie” = pretty stupid

Dayum that commie, tree hugging, hippie, liberal Marxist, New World Order Exxon and their bought and paid for, grant hungry, hoaxing scientists. 🙂

planet8788

Your little diatribe against capitalism gave you away Honey.

jmac

Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

You are personally responsible for the death of millions of AFricans. It’s a war crime all the lying the Climastrologists too.

jmac

Exxon knows it’s never been about the science and that your BS is just BS. Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

planet8788

You use this product…. you are just as gulity as they are. or more.

jmac

No one should be allowed to knowingly sell a product that causes people harm when used as directed, and then use profits from such sales to mislead the public on the science of the harmful nature of the product. People and corporations involved in knowingly misleading the public about the science are criminal sociopaths who don’t care about the lives of others, as long as there is money to be made.

planet8788

Who is selling anything that knowingly does anyone harm… Except your communist propoganda?

jmac

That would be Exxon. Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

Even Exxon and Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

planet8788

YOU ARE THE TOBACCO COMPANY IN THIS CASE.
Ruining the lives of millions of Africans which could be brought out of poverty.

You are the ones killing AFricans… You are the hypocrite that is killing AFricans. You should get the death penalty.

jmac

Tough times for the ignorant and liars like you who have no sympathy for the lives of others as long as there is money to be made.

Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

You are the ones living on fossil fuel while telling the rest of the world, they can’t have it anymore. Hypocrites to the max. THE MAX… Pounding a way on your plastic laptops powered by fossil fuel… driving your car places every day no doubt. Telling poor people in the rest of the world to go and die.

jmac

Looks like Even Google knows you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

planet8788

I post NASA links, you right the communistic diatribe while letting millions of Africans suffer. Sad Little human you are… Are you going to ever post facts… you are starting to bore me with your stupidity

jmac

NASA, yeah they seem to be pretty good at that whole science thing. Let’s see what they have to say. Oh, my goodness, they say the same thing Exxon does.

Why would anyone be so stupid to waste their time looking at some chart from a right wing blogger.

It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change.

planet8788

Hansen is a right wing blogger? You are completely idiotic.

jmac

word salad

planet8788

ARe the satellites lying too?

jmac

Even Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson during the The Tobacco wars.

planet8788

You are the ones denying and lying about the satelilte data.
You are the ones killing AFricans by condemning them to more and worse poverty.
YOU ARE THE TOBACCO COMPANIES.

Can you read a chart? Your communist education looks like it was lacking.

jmac

Exxon knows it’s never been about the science, only ignorant and immoral people who don’t care about the lives of others pretend it is.

Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

Did you actually read this article? All it is is about some scientist stating the opinions of a few other scientists… Not about any research Exxon had done… You are an idiot fool. You probably can’t even read… only know contro-C control-V

jmac

There are many scientists that worked on the Exxon project coming forward now. Here is another one. Katherine Hayhoe

“We’ve known for a long time that Exxon Mobil is one of the chief financial supporters of front groups who sow doubt on climate change and elected officials who vote against climate legislation. If you haven’t heard this before, put some popcorn in the microwave and pull up Merchants of Doubt (film) on Netflix. It will tell you all you need to know.

What most people didn’t realize, until recently, was that Exxon was also doing cutting edge climate research and using it as input to their business plan. At the same time they were paying people to tell us it was all a bunch of hooey.

Were they really doing legitimate, top-notch climate science? Yup, they absolutely were. I know, because I was doing it with them.

My master’s thesis work, and 7 subsequent journal articles, examined the contribution of methane to human-induced climate change. One of my primary collaborators, and the source of at least some of my funding as a graduate student (the bulk coming from scholarships and federal grants), was Exxon. We did the work, we published it in journals like Climatic Change, and we presented it at scientific conferences.

Were the scientists I was working with aware of what else Exxon was spending money on, at the time? No, I’m pretty sure most of them were not. Were the people who directed the research program, and who were responsible for conveying the results of our research to those who set company policy, aware? Yes, in hindsight I’m pretty sure most of them were. And that is why this is such an appalling story.

It’s one thing to honestly doubt the reality of something that will affect your business and your bottom line. It’s a very different thing to be entirely convinced of its reality, to the point where you are making business decisions based on its reality, and as part of your business strategy, decide that deceiving the average person is the best and most profitable course of action.

You have got be really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

jmac

Google calls you a bunch of liars.

Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

I guess that makes you a satellite-data denier then. And we know there is nothing worse than a denier.

jmac

Even Exxon knows you are just trying to create doubt with Lord Moncktons myth (Monckton is a paid shill for the fossil fuel boys and Heartland Institute – who also denied (still denies) the science about the cancer causing effects of tobacco.

planet8788

So you are saying the satellites don’t say the temperature has been stable? What are you saying about the satellites? So yoaure a denier?
Monckton controls the data coming from the satellites? I don’t think you could understand anything. You have shown no science knowledge at all except to appeal to authority. which isn’t science.

jmac

It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change.

planet8788

Right… we know it’s not about the science for you communists. It’s about control. We have been saying that for years.
The satellites are controlled by a right wing blog?

jmac

Exxon calling BS on you again.

You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

planet8788

So all you have is ad hom attacks… No data…No nothing.

planet8788

Please… tell me… where was the smoking gun? That interview was bumpkus and you are too stupid to know any better.

The question isn’t whether we are making more CO2 or whether the concentration is rising…. It is.

The question is… what does it do to the climate? And so far, absolutely nothing, you know why? Because CO2 absorbs the same infrared frequencies that wator vapor does and it becomes effectively saturated at levels much lower than we are at now.

That is why all the models have been wrong.

jmac

Even Google knows your kind are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

Another leftist who also likes importing cheap labor from other countries. Another globalist in short. Another liar. Another fool. Just like you. Are you going to post any facts or data or just appeal to the same stupid authorities all day long.

jmac

Even Exxon and Google know you are a bunch of liars really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And your response is to double down on stupid.

planet8788

They know the satellites are lying too? Oh no… They are just stupid…. And actually Exxon said no such thing… You are too stupid to even understand what Exxon said…. or Even exxon’s ex-scientist who didn’t seem so bright himself.

jmac

Even the Koch bros know you are lying.

Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

How can anyone not know that? The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

Tyler Durden

It’s what happens when welfare kings and queens outnumber productive citizens at the voting booth. It will end when productive citizens wake up and stop allowing public leeches on society to vote, either by barring them, deporting them, or killing them. I’m fine with any of the above. Of course obummer wants to give 11 million illegal alien leeches instant citizenship, that’s 11 million votes to continue the madness. It will change soon – either Trump will be elected and clean out the leeches, or productive people will leave and the leeches will starve.

planet8788

It’s more like 20 million. Because just like they can’t verify Obamacare applications… they won’t be able to verify that anyone has actually been here or not… they will hand them out like candy. if we let them.

PhD

Just in time to destroy any credibility of the Paris Conference…. I suggest we get all of the warmists at the conference to help cut CO2. They need to hold their breaths for an hour. If they can rise from the dead, then we will listen to them.

Mobius Loop

Except that Mr Monckton has zero credibility, as he systematically misrepresents the issue by a highly selective editing of the available information. For example HADCRUT4 is one of the datasets that he fails to mention or that this shows warming during the period that he asserts with blunt certainty that non has occurred.

Liar. He has a Hadcrutch chart in the article. He even mentions methane which is a big reason why the models could be wrong. Real scientists change their hypothesis when the experiment fails.

Mobius Loop

Apologies, you are partially correct, Mr Monckton does indeed mention HADCRUT4 though the graph is a combined mean lumped in with other surface datasets.

Hardly sits well with the banner headline though, no warming, …..er…… um……. apart from these guys!

planet8788

When you can explain why 1940 used to be hotter than 1980 and now its much cooler.

Mobius Loop

This does not make sense as a piece of english language let alone raising a valid point.

Feel free at any point to clarify if its a question or statement, and/or add enough information to give some hint on what you are talking about.

planet8788

That is climastrology for you. Read Hansen et. al 1981 and look at the temp. graph. It’s on Nasa’ s website.

1940 is hotter than 1980.

Mobius Loop

As far as I’m aware, there has never been any doubt or even debate that temperatures do not rise in a direct linear fashion. If you look at the temperatures for the whole C20th there seems to be a 30 year cycle of switching back and forward:

1880 – 1910 stable

1910 – 1945 warming

1945 – 1970 cooling

1970 – 2000 warming

For this reason I was not remotely surprised by the possibility of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in warming, and in fact had thought it likely that we would see stable temperatures until 2030 followed by some serious warming.

That we are not seeing a pause in the surface temperatures is worrying.

As to why temperature rises and falls while CO2 rises, the influence of the PDO seems a likely driver. Throughout much of the C20th temperatures and PDO seemed to react in a similar way, with temperature peeling away from PDO towards the end of the century.

This peeling away is important. If my suggesting is correct and the PDO has a large impact on surface temperatures then with the PDO now in its cooling phase we might expect to be seeing a much more pronounced pause or cooling period.

If the PDO in cooling period is no longer able to restrain warming, then we are potentially in real difficulties when it switches to warming mode, i.e. the 1930’s are likely to be a tough time.

planet8788

While I guess you’re a lot smarter than your average Climastrologist and computer model. That’s why none of us believe them. They are either lying, stupid or both.

Mobius Loop

Nope, my views are simply based on a fair rather than an ideologically driven reading of what climate scientists have been saying calmly and consistently for decades.

planet8788

All the models have bern wrong period. And 15 more years of a pause, which you are predicting makes it more so. Period.

Mobius Loop

I’m not predicting anything. I am not a scientist.

All I said was that I would not have been surprised by a pause, even one lasting another 15 years, and that I find the lack of one ominous.

As to the models, it is blunt and premature to state that they are wrong. They are running at the low side of the range of possibilities at present but as we appear to be in the grip of a strong El Nino event, it is likely that temperatures will rise, as suggested by the abrupt rise in temperatures recorded on this NASA record ….

…. which is likely to bring temperatures towards the center of the model prediction ranges. I can’t see anything out there yet that composites most recent model predictions with most recent temperature, so neither of us can say for certain we are correct.

planet8788

If you take away the meddling they are very wrong. If you look at the satellite data they are very very wrong.

planet8788

We’ll also be greatful for every Hiroshima bomb of heat we stored when we hit the Maunder-like minimum in 15 years.

Mobius Loop

That’s a conversation to pick up in 15 years time.

planet8788

Warming is likely to bring less severe weather if it works like most Climastrologists think… by warming the poles first.

Mobius Loop

Feel free to develop this thought into something more than wishful thinking.

Again, the raw data doesn’t show the warming of which you speak.
The fact that the data used to say 1940 was hotter then 1980 but now all datasets show 1980 hotter is proof that the data is not independent.

i showed you the Hansen paper. In 1981…. 1940 was hotter.
The data is not independent.

Mobius Loop

No you didn’t you alluded to it…..

….. and I in turn linked to two recent data sets that record 1940 as hotter than 1980.

Hansen may have said something different but all that shows is that there is independence and debate among the scientists studying this issue and they are not lock step propagandist as you suggest.

planet8788

No.. Hansen now buys off on the data…. It’s being constantly adjusted. If you were paying attention and looking into history, you would know that. 1880-1980 warming has tripled since 1980. Showcase example of confirmation bias if not fraud.

planet8788

What happened to the global cooling you referenced from 1940-1975?
Were you lying… or was it erased…. to make the hockeystick.

Mobius Loop

Not hidden, not erased, its right where it always was for anyone to see.

In the 1970’s they were saying it had cooled about .6 or .7C. I don’t see that drop… Were scientists too stupid to be able to read thermometers accurately?

That’s a pause… not cooling. 0.2C cooling is noise. Again, reference Hansen et. al. 1981 and every newspaper and magazine from the time. The temperature data is totally incompatible with the ice data as well. If the 1890’s were really 1C cooler, we would have been in an ice age.

Mobius Loop

As we’ve reached a point where you have to split hairs between the words ‘pause’ and ‘cooling’ or go back almost 35 years to drum up some tired outrage, it is really the end of any useful of vaguely interesting discussion.

End.

planet8788

Because you can’t account for the changes… And without all those temp modifications you have nothing. The satellites have called your bluff.

Mobius Loop

For that to be true, 4 independent scientific institutions in 3 separated countries would have to be engaged in an elaborate decade long fraud that involved considerable co-ordination between them and required the entire scientific establishment turning a blind eye.

Feel free to either provide some proof to back up this stunning conspiracy theory ….. until then I’ll stick it in the file labelled “Delusional Ranting”.

planet8788

What happened to Hansen’s data? If all four datasets are independent… what happened to the chart in Hansen, et. al 1981?

Mobius Loop

I neither know nor care.

Feel free to explain its relevance or for that matter why you can’t come up with anything more interesting or convincing than what you feel is a single error(?) in a single decades old scientific paper.

planet8788

It shows how the temperature record of today… doesn’t look anything like it did 35 years ago. And you can see all the changes have been in one direction. Past gets colder… present gets hotter. Yet you claim all four datasets are independent… How can that be… if they all deviate from the true historic original datasets?

And all it takes is peer pressure and confirmation basis… no conspiracy or fraud needed…. but some of them probably know the gig is almost up.

Mobius Loop

So, no proof, just more delusional keyboard slap and wishful thinking from a back room grunt ….

….. if you can come up with something more substantial I’d be interested in seeing it, until then, this is just a bit dull and childish.

End

jmac

Monckton is another shill from the Heartland Institute. He will lie for money. This short entertaining video should set anyone straight who doubts that he is anything but a hired killer and a snake-oil salesman.

planet8788

Point me to one lie in this article. ONE.

jmac

Bear in mind, that I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. That would be futile. I’m trying to show the evidence to everyone else. In fairness, you’re probably doing a pretty good job all by yourself.

That video speaks volumes to the type of people that have been lying and trying to create doubt about the science.

Even Google calls you just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

Please… Point out to me the smoking gun in each of these cases…. The first one… Corporations are out to make money and keep up their image…. Duhhhhh.

Please be specific so I can address specific points… Please start with the most damning.

You kill more Africans with your hyprocrisy than Global Warming ever will.

jmac

Even Exxon and Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

planet8788

Posting it a hundred times doesn’t make it any less false. You communist hypocrite pig. African Killer.

jmac

Exxon = communist now = pretty stupid comment.

Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

jmac

It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knows that.

Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

planet8788

You are right. For communists like you, it’s about the power and how nice it feels to think in your puny little insecure mind that you are saving the world with your stupidity.

jmac

It’s Exxon calling your BS, well BS!
Exxon = communists = ignorant

planet8788

Where did Exxon call my BS. Give me the exact quote and a link.

jmac

Oh, I doubt Exxon has ever even heard of you. But they know your BS is just BS, as does Google and the Koch bros.

You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

Even Exxon and Google knows you are lying and your only hope is to try to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco did.

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

planet8788

YOu are killing AFricans by the millions. More than global warming will ever kill.
Hypocrite. You gave away your colors in your anti-capitalist rant.

Even Exxon, Google and the Koch bros know it has never been about the science.

Do you seriously think that you have info of some credible scientific study that disproves man made climate change? How stupid of you not to get Exxon et al and Koch bros to pay you billions for such a study?

The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

planet8788

And you ignore the satellite data and have zero explanation for the deviation between the satellite data and the highly skewed temperature record.

Mobius Loop

OK, setting aside your crude assumptions on what I am or am not ignoring, here is an overlay of RSS, GISS & UAH between 1980 & 2015 with the trend lines added for that period.

RSS drops slightly after 2000 relative to the other two but the overall trend lines are very similar.

This short term variation in the sets is hardly the killer evidence you seem to think it is, and even at that, Mr Monckton admits that he is expecting to see a kick up in RSS within the next two years.

planet8788

Considering 1980 came at the end of a period of global cooling…. It most certainly is significant.

Mobius Loop

1979/80 to present is also the period of time that is covered by the RSS & UAH data sets, so is significant in that respect.

Global cooling between 1945 and 1970 is a whole other issue, important in its own right but of less relevance to the specifics of this article.

planet8788

Very relevant to this article. VERY relevant.

monckton

Fig. 1b of the head posting shows the small warming on the mean of the three terrestrial datasets. One of them is HadCRUT4. Try learning to read.

PhD

Mobius, you have loops in your brain…..Lord Monckton is a very brilliant antagonist who is very careful in the vetting of his information….. it is your HADCRUT4 et al that have selectively been pruned to remove all mitigating temperature information. The University of East Anglia (CRU) is the laughing stock of the entire scientific community after the release of their severely warped leftie emails….. we all know that their info (also helped by the Hadley Center) is carefully modified to support AGW….. why on Earth would anyone still believe those wack jobs.

Mobius Loop

Monckton is a fantasist.

He is only person I’ve ever heard of that the UK House of Lords has felt compelled to write and publish a letter to publicly stating that he is a liar and demanding that he stops lying.

PhD

The UK House of Lords are complicit in AGW. AGW is complete and utter hogwash. Monckton knows this and combats it.

Mobius Loop

I didn’t know it was possible to type with your tongue!

PhD

Wow !! You know that talking to yourself in jibberish is a serious psychological problem. You need help. I think Loopy that you should hold your breath for 10 minutes as an exercise to reduce you carbon footprint. Let me know how that works out for you. HA HA HA HA HA HA

Mobius Loop

I should really be more specific. Look at the two graphs in his article showing IPCC predictions. You may notice they show different times spans?

If you composite them together you see that Monckton uses different starting points for the 1990 & 2005 graphs, so he is not comparing like for like but manipulating the information to exaggerate the mismatch between the green line and the RSS data set.

The purple line allows a like for like comparison. This is typical of the man.

So, with all the skill of a second rate magician Mr Monckton is engaged in clumsy misdirection.

He focuses heavily on one data set dealing with one part of the atmosphere with only a brief and dismissively worded reference to any of the other data sets that do not support his argument.

So, just for the record, here is the temperature record from the Japanese Meterological Agency which clearly shows warming during the last 18 years, 9 months, 3 days, 1 hour, 30 seconds…… or whatever figure Monckton has to use to try and make his claims stack up.

No misdirection at all. He tells both sides of the story. Even noting how one of the reasons the models would be off is because they overestimated methane concentrations.

You are a blind delusional fool.
Read Hansen et. al 1981…. Look at the temperature charts… What happened to them?

Mobius Loop

I would have no objection to Mr Monckton if he laid the information out clearly e.g. setting terrestrial and satellite data sets side by side, then explain that between 2000 & present 2 of the data sets show warming and one does not.

Instead he launches into his banner headline of no warming, dwells a lot on RSS, dismisses GISS as fraudulent and then, perhaps most tellingly, mentions UAH but …….. er um does not let you see the graph itself…… I wonder why ……. could it be because UAH actually shows warming and is closer to GISS than RSS.

In fact, if Monckton laid his information out as follows I would be less inclined to dismiss him as a pedller of snake oil.

Spare me the righteous indignation. In most of the article, he averages RSS and UAH together… You didn’t read it… You skimmed it at best. A quote:

To be precise, a quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.27 Cº, equivalent to little more than 1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s central estimate of 0.71 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990) with “substantial confidence” was approaching three times too big. In fact, the outturn is visibly well below even the least estimate.

RSS and UAH start in 1980… after a 35 year period of global cooling. So seeing a trend upward after that for a few years should be expected. THE FACT IS THEIR IS NO EXPLANATION for the divergence… Except that the surface temps keep getting fudged every other week.

Mobius Loop

Again thank you for deciding my reaction for me, and back in the world of reality I’m not remotely indignant, I’m simply making a point that 4 terrestrial data sets are broadly in agreement:

I’m also pointing out that the UAH data set is in pretty close agreement with them, and that the RSS shows a small recent divergence that is hardly enough to tear down 30+ years of scientific research.

Again you have no evidence that surface trends are being falsified nor do you make any reference to the fact that the satellite records also have to be adjusted to allow for a range of factors including the cross calibration of different satellites.

As to the divergence, there is temporary variation in all the data sets even the terrestrial ones based on largely the same raw data. If there divergence were to continue for another 10 years or become more pronounced you might have a point but you are at least 5 years away from being able to make a valid point……… while even Monckton admits that he is expecting to see a rise in the RSS figures shortly.

If we accept your argument that AGW is not occurring I’m at a loss to understand why warming post 1980 is an absolute given.

Ultimately though it comes down to whether we trust our scientific establishment or put or faith in a backroom grunt like yourself cheerleading for a notoriously eccentric fantasist…..

So unless you are trying to say that the hottest point of an extreme year is typical, then I don’t see where you are getting the no warming from.

monckton

The UAH dataset shows no warming at all for 18 years 6 months from May 1997 to October 2015. The basis for calculation of these graphs is clearly explained in the head posting. Try reading it. The start-date for each zero-trend graph is simply the earliest date from which a zero trend runs. Not exactly a difficult concept to understand, is it?

The further graphs supplied in the head posting show that the discrepancy between the rates of warming predicted by the IPCC and the rates that are actually observed continues inexorably to widen. For some of the reasons why this exaggeration is happening, read my papers in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Mobius Loop

Hmmmmm, can’t see where you’ve explained UAH without lumping it in with RSS except in the “Key Facts About Global Temperatures” bit where you include a UAH graph that clearly shows warming.

MY paper’S’ …… you’ve had more than one paper published in China? Do the ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS whose coat tails you hung off not get really peeved by your arrogant dismissal of their contribution?

monckton

It is a simple matter to anyone but a bought-and-paid-for climate-Communist crook to calculate the least-squares linear-regression trend on the UAH temperature data for the past 18 years 6 months. The trend is zero (or actually a tad below zero).

As to my papers on climate sensitivity, they are proving highly popular with the scientists who read the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The first paper is, by a factor ten, the most-downloaded paper in the entire 60-year archive of that distinguished journal of the world’s largest academy of sciences.

Mobius Loop

You missed a trick.

I was using the wrong information (thank you to Odin2 ….. presumably heir to Odin 1).

Apparently UAH5 has been replaced by UAH6, the first showing a rise and the second not:

You must be referring to the heavily adjusted and officially unrecognised UAHv.7.0 dataset. The humongous adjusts on this data set have not been peer reviewed, unlike the minor corrective tweaks to the their other based data.

monckton

The warming trend from May 1997 to October 2015, a period of 18 years 6 months, is a zero trend on the UAH v.6 dataset. There is no v.7.

Icarus62

Cherry-picking dishonesty. You have deliberately chosen a period which least represents the true overall warming trend in the data. A year or two either side, and the data shows virtually the same warming trend as the entire dataset – a perfect illustration that short term trends are not robust. You know this perfectly well, and your cherry-picking nonsense is about as effective an admission of your intention to deceive as it’s possible to make, without actually stating it outright.

“As Lenin used to say, where should we be without the useful idiots? It is not a crime to be an idiot. But it is a crime knowingly and persistently to lie with the intention of deceiving others, either with intent to profit or with intent to cause loss. Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence. No small part of that evidence is to give the trolls fair warning that if they depart from the truth in future they may face jail. Then, if they persist in their lies and deceptions, their intent can be more easily demonstrated.

Don’t be childish, and don’t be repetitive. The basis on which the calculation for the graphs in the head posting are conducted, including the determination of the start date by calculation, is explicitly and carefully set out in the head posting. The truth is that by now there should be 0.3 degrees/decade warming, if the IPCC were correct in 1990, but for the last couple of decades there has been more like zero, and the warming rate since the satellite data began in 1979, is equivalent to little more than 0.1 degrees/decade, little more than a third of the IPCC’s predicted rate.

Every six months at WattsUpWithThat I prepare an analysis of all the principal terrestrial and satellilte datasets over all timescales, so that the complete picture is available for those who want it. These monthly reports concentrate on the RSS dataset, which reports first each month, and they constitute a valuable resource for those who are genuinely interested in what is actually happening to global temperature. So don’t be silly.

Mobius Loop

Monckton stacks one dishonesty on top of another, see also his double standards in happily accepting the adjusted UAH v.6 data set while rejecting ALL of the terrestrial ones because they have been adjusted.

Icarus62

Of course – anything that appears to lessen the actual warming rate, Monckton and his co-conspirators welcome with open arms, unquestioned. It’s so transparent…

Mobius Loop

At times it seems there is no comment so daft, no fact so shaky or no tactic so low that they will not embrace it to shore up a failing argument.

Mobius Loop

What we definately have are the UAH V.5 & UAH v.6 datasets which provide different interpretations of the same information.

Much of the argument for using satellite records is that they are direct observations and yet here we have a very clear example of them being adjusted or ‘tampered with’.

Do you think that this intervention by scientists invalidates UAH v.6?

monckton

For some time I had been concerned that UAH was running hot. I had conveyed those concerns to the operators of the dataset. They had themselves realized some corrections needed to be made. They made them.

There is a simple calibration test one can use. Because the lower troposphere occupies the lower 5 km of the atmosphere (or thereby, and varying with latitude), heat transfer by evaporative-convective processes should lead to a greater warming with altitude, as far as the mid-troposphere, than at the surface. Accordingly, on the basis of well-understood physical principles, the surface temperature change should be about 83% of the mean lower-troposphere temperature change and only 33% of the temperature change in the mid-troposphere (Santer et al., 2003, cited by IPCC, 2007). Yet the terrestrial tamperature datasets do not – as they should – show less warming than the satellite datasets: they show more warming.

And the amount of extra warming they show is approximately equal to the sum of the urban heat island effect (quantified in Michaels & McKitrick, 2007, as an overstatement of land surface temperature changes by double) and those elements in the terrestrial-temperature corrections that appear fictional and inadequately justified by science.

Bottom line: since the warming rate in the quarter-century since October 1990 is only 0.25 Celsius (mean of UAH and RSS datasets), the mean of the surface datasets should be 0.2 Celsius – equivalent to a centennial rate of only 0.8 Celsius. Not exactly a problem.

Mobius Loop

So is Spencer’s data set peer reviewed?

On the other point, I have an admission…..

……strange though it may seem, it would not in any way surprise me if you are correct and there has been a recent pause in the rise of surface temperatures, given that the C20th was marked by 30 year long periods of warming followed by 30 year long periods of stability or even cooling e.g.

Here is a quote from Shang-Ping Xie in the article that seems pretty appropriate to our discussion.

“Because of natural cycles of various timescales, global temperature rises in a staircase-like manner instead of shooting up straight”

monckton

The furtively anomymous “The” is apparently incapable of determining a least-squares linear-regression trend on a time-series. The trend on the UAH v.6 time-series shows no global warming, at all, for 18 years 6 months from May 1997 to October 2015. Try doing your own research rather than lifting it from propaganda sites.

Had you done your own research, you would perhaps have discovered by now (for this is at least the third cut-and-paste of the same posting by you, which is a breach of site rules) that there is no UAH v.7.

Conclusion: whichever climate-Communist advocacy group is paying you $98,000 p.a. to troll for totalitarianism at sites like these in the hope of scaring off others who might otherwise find the courage to express dissent from the Party Line on climate is not getting good value for its money.

The

My anonymity is perfectly reasonable. I make no false claims as to my identity. For instance, I wouldn’t claim to have been a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher if I hadn’t been nor would I claim to be a member of the House of Lords if I weren’t.

I admit my mistake re. UAH v7. I meant the one you quote from, UAH v6. This data set is not officially recognised as the gigantic adjustments to UAH v5.6 have not been peer reviewed. There appears to be no just cause for these adjustments other than to eliminate the 0.104c per decade warming trend recorded by UAHv5.6.

You do yourself no favours by calling me out on my anonymity but then claiming you know I am paid by communists. I can confidently and honestly say I receive no payment from any group or person regarding what I write or say about climate change. Christopher Monckton can make no such claims, having been paid by the fossil fuel funded heartland institute.

monckton

Delivering cheap insults from behind a cloak of anonymity is cowardice. You are no more an expert on the peerage than you are on the climate. According to the legal opinion I obtained when I had received notice from journalists that the Clot of the Parliaments had opined that I was not a member of the House, the Clot is wrong and I am a member, albeit without the right to sit and vote. There is nothing the Clot can do about it.

As to the advice I gave to Margaret Thatcher, I advised her on a number of scientific questions during my period at the Downing Street policy unit from 1982-1986. It is not clear to me on what basis you assert the contrary: but it is certainly no basis in fact.

You have at least conceded that there is no version 7 of UAH. However, version 6 is close to the RSS dataset, which is peer-reviewed, so no doubt in due time Dr Christy and Dr Spencer at UAH will give an account of their changes in a reviewed journal in the usual way.

If you behave like a paid climate-Communist troll I am entitled to state that that is what you are. By directing falsehoods and insults at me from behind a cloak of craven anonymity you are certainly a coward.

egriff5514

LOL – Monckton is citing a clot as an authority. One clot citing another… hohoho

Mobius Loop

You mean to say that Spencer has not even explained why he ‘tampered’ with his data set and yet you still accept it?

Is Chris a birther as well? It’s difficult to keep track of the crazy…

It’s a conspiracy of the Clot of Parliaments and the paid Climate-Communist Trolls! lol!

monckton

Glad you like my Gilbert & Sullivan costume. I wear it for Victorian evenings around the piano.

But, on any view, that is off topic. The fact that there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months is the toplc. And on that topic you appear to have nothing to say: an admission, perhaps, that the head posting is in all respects true.

Mobius Loop

Yes I do like your Gilbert & Sullivan costume, it’s very fitting….. though not in the supply of blood to the brain sense.

Oh, and here are four terrestrial data sets prepared by four different scientific institutions on three different continents, all of which show warming in the last 18 years & 9 months:

He sets out to bait, happy to insult others though at times his bottom lip comes out for a quiver when people are rude back to him.

As far as anonymity is concerned, he is perfectly happy for the Heartless Institute et al. to channel secret funds through anonymous channels, presumably because a little bit falls into his pockets to sweep him off on round the world junkets and keep him in sherry.

Mobius Loop

Why do you accept the UAH v.6 figures when they have been tampered with?

monckton

I was one of those who asked for a re-examination of the dataset because statistical tests showed it was running artificially hot. Those of us who thought that were right: indeed, the proprietor of this website, when the new version came out, contacted me to say I had called it correctly.

Mobius Loop

So, a well known classicist peddler of nonsense, gets the thumbs up from the political ideologue who runs a propaganda project for a conservative think tank ……… spare me your self adulation, and let us all know when anyone gets round to peer reviewing Spencer’s latest offering.

The

No, UAH shows a warming trend of 0.104c per decade since 1997. http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
It seems the mods won’t allow me to inform you that v.7.0 of this dataset has been massively adjusted and that these adjustments are not officially recognised as they have not been peer reviewed, unlike the minor corrective tweaks to the surface data. Odd.

monckton

UAH shows a warming trend of zero from May 1997 to October 2015, using the standard least-squares linear-regression model recommended by the IPCC and by Phil Jones at East Anglia.

And I’m not surprised that the moderators would not allow you to inform me about v. 7 of the dataset. The last adjustment, several months ago, took the series from v. 5.6 to v. 6.0, where it is at the moment. As part of my usual due diligence before adopting the new version, I wrote to Dr Roy Spencer, who keeps the dataset, and he confirmed what I had long suspected: that there had been some errors in his data that did not exist in the RSS data. When the UAH data were corrected for that error and for various other, smaller errors, the result was the new dataset. Dr Spencer made no attempt to push the data in one direction or another: in his words, in a splendid email to me, “It is what it is.”

monckton

I do congratulate Planet8788 on having given the paid climate-communist trolls who regularly infest sites such as this a run for their money. The purpose of the environmental-Socialist extreme advocacy groups that pay them is to ensure that here, as everywhere else, anyone who expresses skeptical opinions is terrorized into silence by a barrage of co-ordinated, lavishly-funded hate-speech. The technique, invented by Goebbels and perfected by Ion Mihai Pacepa, former head of the Desinformatsiya directorate of the KGB, does work well to silence dissenters, who, not being paid as the climate-Communist trolls are, eventually tire of trying to express their own legitimate viewpoint. By methods such as this, a kind of dismal, enforced “consensus” has been inflicted on the world.

The reason why the totalitarian trolls are so very angry with me is that I can’t be silenced, and they have at last begun to discover that even their systematic attempts to trash my reputation (see e.g. my Wikipedia entry, which is vile untruth artfully dressed up) have backfired on them, because third parties watching this debate, and not participating because they fear that they will be subjected to the same hate speech, threats etc. that every effective climate skeptic is compelled to endure, are beginning to realize that in my case, as in many others, the hate speech is a little too shrill and a little too obviously co-ordinated, with a few key web pages that can be endlessly linked to, etc.

But the money for climate hysteria is beginning to run dry, and no small part of the reason is the failure of the usual suspects to produce credible, scientifically serious answers to the growing and now embarrassingly large discrepancy between prediction and reality.

So, well done Planet8788. You have been more than usually persistent and courageous in facing down these paid climate-Communist trolls, who spread their poisonous hate-speech and their ingenious falsehoods from behind a cowardly safety-curtain of anonymity. However, the prosecuting authorities are now taking a real interest in the many complaints from skeptics that a serious and elaborately-coordinated fraud has been practised, and their net is beginning to widen to take an interest in how the climate-Communist advocacy groups have paid large sums in fraudulent attempts to silence dissenters from the Party Line.

I confidently expect that, in due course, some of the regular merchants of falsehood who appear over and over again on these threads, often making rebarbatively repetitive cut-and-paste postings, will discover that the anonymity they thought they enjoyed will not protect them from eventual prosecution as the fraudulent aspects of the climate scam begin to reach the criminal courts.

That is not to say that every believer is a fraudster. Far from it. As Lenin used to say, where should we be without the useful idiots? It is not a crime to be an idiot. But it is a crime knowingly and persistently to lie with the intention of deceiving others, either with intent to profit or with intent to cause loss. Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence. No small part of that evidence is to give the trolls fair warning that if they depart from the truth in future they may face jail. Then, if they persist in their lies and deceptions, their intent can be more easily demonstrated.

Since the fraud of which these creeps are a willing and profiteering part is arguably the largest fraud ever perpetrated, their punishment will not be small when they are eventually brought to book. They can expect long prison sentences. And that will serve them right. They thought anonymity would protect them. Well, it won’t.

I am grateful to Robert for his acknowledgement of the dismal effect that his bullying in these threads appears calculated to achieve. It is failing, though.

Robert

Last poll I saw showing even Republicans not quite so wiling to follow their ‘party line”….

monckton

I don’t get my science from opinion polls; I get it from studying the theory and the data, and reading papers in the learned journals, and sitting at the feet of learned professors and doctors. I certainly don’t get it from some political party or another. But the Republican Party has shown itself uniquely courageous in standing up to the sneering hate-speech of the climate Communists and stating, quietly but firmly, that the science is not settled.

Robert

Thank you….

” Republican Party has shown itself uniquely courageous in standing up to the sneering hate-speech of the climate Communists”

Robert

“The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence[7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3, 6.5, 2.9}”
SPM AR 4

“Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. ”

SPM AR5

“…the science is not settled.”

Oh, who to accept? Some blogger who won’t cite anything or the well researched statements of a team of scientists with demonstrated expertise in their specialized fields?

monckton

Don’t shift your ground. You denied that there were major differences between the forcing charts in AR4 and AR5. Now that you have looked at both graphs and seen some major differences, you suddenly drop all mention of the graphs and talk about Man having caused some warming instead. Not very intellectually honest, are you? Not very competent, either.

“Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence”

Robert

“They can expect long prison sentences. And that will serve them right. ”

Must have been talking about Exxon.
Or maybe those ’19 year’ posts.?

Robert

And previously, you claimed I made 150k, amended to 155k, then amended with 35k expense account.
And named an organization.

And then showed no evidence.

“Several of the paid climate-Communist trolls here are now well known to the authorities, who are marshaling the evidence. “

monckton

Since you lurk behind an incomplete name, because you are too cowardly to declare who you are, I shall say exactly what I like about you, and you will have to take it, because it is not directed at a person: merely at a cult. That cult employs useful idiots like you to disrupt these threads with numbingly repetitive, futile and hate-filled comments.

Meanwhile, the world continues not to warm at anything like the predicted rate. And that is a fact that you should no longer seek to deny. It is the truth, as even the IPCC has accepted.

Robert

Again, said wo evidence;
“..not to warm at anything like the predicted rate. “

monckton

Asked and answered. All the evidence, in detail, with references, is in the head posting. Get someone to read it to you, or perhaps to draw some nice pictures if that’s easier for you to understand. I hear your library burned down the other day. Both books were burned – and one of them hadn’t even been colored in. So grow up, and accept the overwhelming evidence that the predictions made in the Holy Books of IPeCaC were false.

Mobius Loop

Is this you pretending that the IPCC is working to their 25 year old projections without acknowledging that within 5 years they had revised these and that their subsequent projections where significantly more accurate.

So did you know that and just fancy sticking the lie in anyway or was it a case of not actually looking at the information for 25 years yet thinking you were competent to make a valid point?

monckton

Try getting Nanny to read the head posting to you in words of one syl-la-ble. You will see that not one but two graphs comparing IPCC’s exaggerated predictions with real-world data are given: one commencing in 1990, another in 1995. Both show that the predictions are considerable exaggerations.

Your graph above, which is not sourced, leading to the suspicion that it comes from a climate-Communist website, displays the various predicted trends, but does not display the changing actual trends to provide a proper comparison. The trend in both predictions and in observed temperatures has fallen, so that even the IPCC’s more recent predictions continue to be very substantial exaggerations.

It would be better if, instead of parroting the climate-Communist talking points that have long since been discredited (and some of them are the subject of fraud investigations), you did a little thinking. To you and your paymasters, perhaps, this is a childish propaganda war. To skeptics, this is a scientific question, and that requires a combination of study, understanding, and intellectual honesty.

Mobius Loop

Well Lord Haw Haw, if your own Nanny had spent some time instilling a sense of honesty into you instead of beating out any trace of socialism, perhaps you would not be distorting information to shore up your failing argument:

As this doctored piece of nonsense demonstrates, you are a dab hand at manipulating graphs to show what you want them to.

GIven you obvious ‘skill’, I wonder that instead of complaining, you don’t just rustle up your own version showing the observed trend lines relative to the IPCC projection lines.

Perhaps I could then respond by providing another graph showing the rather closer match between the IPCC projections and the terrestrial data sets.

Robert

So, basically you are saying you are just making up stuff.

Interesting to see what you say next time you take questions at one of your slideshows.

“Since you lurk…
. . . .
…and hate-filled comments.”

monckton

What I am saying is this. Some years ago I was made aware that various climate-Communist advocacy groups were spending very large sums of money trying to trash my reputation, because they had concluded that my commentaries on the climate question were proving effective in high places (I advise several governments). So they set up a number of people to follow me and my writings full-time. They paid them a lot of money to do this. And they indulged in various interesting techniques to see to it that my speeches did not go viral on the internet.

On one occasion, I received a phone-call from Texas A&M University, from a professor who used to monitor the internet there. He told me had had come across clear evidence that someone (he did not know who) had spent at least $250,000 trying to stop a single speech of mine from attracting more than the 5 million hits it had already received on YouTube, spread across several sites.

Till then I had no idea of the lavish funding that these environmental-Socialist advocacy groups had available to them, still less of what vast sums they were willing to spend to try to silence me. Well, all that money was wasted. It got to the point where the sheer hatred shown to me by the climate Communists became so obvious to all that hard-Left websites are now the best recruiting-agent for the truth: people read the hate-speech about me and realize its perpetrators have gone way too far, and that nearly all of them are anonymous cowards like you – the lowest of the low.

So they contrast the detailed scientific answers I give to comments with the yah-boo from the likes of you, and they draw their conclusions. And their conclusions are not at all favorable to the climate-Communist cause. Which is why I take the trouble from time to time to reply in detail on these threads.

The fact, the undeniable fact, is that the rate of global warming since 1990 is a small fraction of the rate predicted by the IPCC in that year. It is all set out in the head posting. And when ordinary, unprejudiced, non-socialist, freedom-loving, open-minded people read these postings, they can see for themselves who is trying to tell the truth – and it isn’t you. You are paid a lot, and paid to lie, but the money is wasted, because you are so bad at it.

” that my commentaries on the climate question were proving effective in high places”
No evidence

” (I advise several governments).”
No evidence.

And that is just the first sentence…..

monckton

Don’t be childish. When you are asked to produce evidence, you run a mile.

The science is clear: the world is not warming at anything like the predicted rate. See the head posting for details. And the fact of the long pause in global warming, almost unknown two years ago, is now known to all, thanks in no small part to these regular monthly updates. So you are going to have to produce some serious science if you wish to refute the evidence. Behaving like a small and more than usually unintelligent child will convince no one but yourself and – one hopes – your climate-Communist paymasters, who must be becoming more than a little concerned at your ineffectiveness, your repetitiveness, your stupidity, and your obvious lack of any knowledge of or interest in objective scientific truth.

Robert

D. Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

monckton, “..I shall say exactly what I like…”

monckton

I am entitled to any facts I like about a hate-speaking, paid climate Communist troll who is too terrified and craven and cowardly even to admit who he is. That is the conspicuous fact: the cowardliness of those who post their hate speech here under pseudonyms. Most well-run websites ban trolls like you from making rude comments about your betters unless you are prepared to say who you are. But you are not man enough to admit who you are. You snipe childishly from behind a contemptible curtain of anonymity.

Mobius Loop

Most well run website would not allow your nonsense web space.

monckton

Many well-run websites print these graphs, which is why they have gained such a very large currency, and why they appear so often on television. After all, that is why your climate-Communist paymasters pay you to try – unsuccessfully – to disrupt the discussion threads here. The huge audience now watching these exchanges is 94% supportive of the truth as expressed in the head posting.

jmac

If anyone has some credible study that will disprove man made climate science, they would have no problem getting funding from Exxon et. al. to complete the study and publish it in credible journals. That research would be worth billions maybe even trillions to the fossil fuel boys.

Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

At this point, the deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

Robert

I had to keep looking to make sure that screw was posted by ‘monckton’. Out of context, many of the statements fit to what Lord Monckton and Exxon have been doin.
And both well documented.
The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015)

Monckton is a criminal sociopath and pitiful excuse for a human being. As long as he can make money, he doesn’t give one slime ball about the lives of others. He is just that slimy. Those right wing values voters version of hell was made for him.

The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science. Even Exxon and the Koch bros with unlimited resources have been unable to produce a credible study that disproves man made climate change. In fact, both of their studies came to the same conclusion as the consensus.

The only thing they have left is to attempt to create doubt; which takes time away from creating viable methods for mitigation, adaption to lessen the damage that is coming. Intentionally delaying the process for mitigation and adaption, so that fossil fuel boys can extend their profits, is a crime that will affect people, countries and economies.

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

Mobius Loop

I hope that some of the invetigations that seem to be in the offing start to shine a light on the network of funding agencies used by the likes of Exxon & the Kochs.

It would be really useful to have the full extent and nature of these exposed to public scrutiny.

monckton

Jmac, as usual, puts its foot in its mouth. The problem is indeed that climate “science” – or at least the notion that global temperatures are rising as predicted, when it is blindingly obvious that they are not – is man-made. It is fabricated. The evidence, however, is clear. The world is not warming as predicted, and even Dr Muller, the author of the BEST study, acknowledges that that is the case. Shortly before he published the results, I met him at the Los Alamos climate conference, at which he and I both gave talks. He seemed surprised when I told him what the results of his research would be. I said that he would broadly find the terrestrial data accurate. He asked what I thought of that conclusion. I said it did not much concern me, for at that time I had little reason to doubt the accuracy of the terrestrial data.

However, there has been considerable tampering since then, on a scale that does seem more than a little suspicious. Close analysis of the changes suggests that they were co-ordinated between the three longest-standing terrestrial datasets with the intention of falsely eradicating the pause in global warming, which all three datasets had previously shown. Suddenly, all three of them ceased to show that result, while the two satellite datasets continued to show it.

So, try making some scientific points rather than trotting out the tired climate-Communist insults you are paid to make. Those insults may well deter others from joining these threads, and no doubt that is your fell intent, for totalitarians have never believed in free speech, and when they are losing an argument, as they have completely lost this one, they resort to various tactics to try to deny or delay the truth. But, as the apocryphal Book of Esdras says, “Great is truth, and mighty above all things.” The world is not warming at anything like the predicted rate, and that fact, which cannot legitimately be denied, casts more than a little doubt upon the future predictions of doom that the climate Communists peddle.

jmac

I’m calling BS. What Los Alamos climate conference. Who sponsored the conference? Were you a paid speaker?

monckton

At scientific conferences, speakers are paid by their institutions. Having no institution, I was not paid.

jmac

When was the conference? Who sponsored it? What did you do to have such a nice retirement, that you can fly around the world at your own expense?

monckton

Perhaps you have not heard of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. They organize a climate conference every few years. I attend several such scientific conferences every year, including an annual visit to the seminars on planetary emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists. This year I shall also be going to a scientific conference in Paris, and another in Essen. For my work on climate sensitivity and on climate economics is interesting to those who are genuinely curious to know the truth, and the vast majority of scientists try to keep an open mind on subjects they have not themselves studied, so they are intrigued to hear a well-marshalled case for the skeptical position.

What I did was to be very successful with a series of inventions that other people thought were mad. But they worked. And they were profitable. For it is one thing to be able to invent something, and quite another to bring it to market successfully.

jmac

Monckton, nobody could make this stuff up.

1. Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath.

2. The list of diseases cured by Monckton’s miracle tonic expands from time to time. At one point he claimed, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI.” At another time he said, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.” Maybe some of you physicians out there can help me interpret this, but it looks to me like Monckton is claiming that his Wonder Cure will 1) wipe out any virus without harming the patient, and 2) cure auto-immune disorders that may (or may not) have initially been triggered by a viral infection. It is unclear to me whether bacterial infections are supposed to be affected since, for instance, food poisoning could be caused by either. [UPDATE: Monckton apparently is saying the miracle cure should be effective against both viral and bacterial infections, as well as prions.]

monckton

Off topic. Asked and answered. Get over it.

Mobius Loop

“Get over it!” ……….. was that the cure you invented?

Mobius Loop

What about flights, accommodation & expenses for your Heartless junket or the Australia trip.

monckton

None of your business, and off topic. However, my last Australia trip was a three-month Christian mission that I preached to the Pentecostal churches of the state of Victoria. And that was paid for by the love-offerings of the large congregations that attended my popular sermons. As for the American trip, I visited several destinations and the cost was, therefore, divided among those audiences before whom I had the honor to speak. All of this is quite normal, and it happens a thousand times as often for believers as it does for questioners.

Mobius Loop

None of my business …….. or in other words, the expenses were pretty generous thank you, a wee bit of a velvet lining to the old pocket eh?

Mobius Loop

The world is not warming as predicted ……….. only when you lie by omission and ignore model projects that are less than 25 years old.

monckton

Get Nanny to read the head posting to you in words of one syl-la-ble. Fig. 3 shows the IPCC predictions made in 2007, just eight years ago. Failed again. If you were only interested in the truth, you would be interesting yourself. But you are only interested in peddling the climate-Communist propaganda you are paid to peddle, and that is merely laughable, though no doubt profitable.

Meanwhile, millions in Africa starve and die of disease because environmental Communism won’t allow them cheap, clean, reliable, base-load coal-fired electricity. Just as the environmental Communists killed 50 million with their half-assed ban on DDT, now they are killing tens of milliions more by denying them electricity. It is time to make all forms of totalitarianism illegal on the ground of the crimes against humanity that they have committed and, alas, continue to commit.

Mobius Loop

My word you are right!

Apologies, I was so caught up in observing that one of your posts which stated …..

“Meanwhile, the rate of warming since 1990, on all three longest-standing terrestrial datasets and on both satellite datasets, is below the IPCC’s least warming rate predicted in 1990. That will continue to be the case if the coming el Nino is followed by a la Nina.”

……..contained such a deceptive omission of the subsequent predictions that I forgot to look at your many graphs.

However, I was studying these with renewed interest when it struck me as interesting that they had different starting dates and I was curious to see what would happen if you overlaid them, so here you go, a composite:

So you have raised the green line showing the 2005(7?) prediction, exaggerating the mismatch between this and the RSS data set, whereas the purple line allows a like for like comparison against the 1990 IPCC prediction.

Bickmore was right, you pile on a dense layer of information, but just look carefully at it and there is always the error, or the lie.

Mobius Loop

How fantastic it would have been to be a fly on the wall at the meeting where the results were presented.

There is a strange pleasure to be had when a denier presents you with something genuinely interesting that they haven’t realized skewers their nonsense.

Thanks, for passing on the link, looks really good, I’ll try and read it over the next couple of days.

jmac

Nothing really new in it but it was from 2012 and it does mention Heartland specifically. Maybe the author has some solid evidence somewhere though.

jmac

Dayum that commie, tree hugging, hippie, liberal Marxist, New World Order Exxon and their bought and paid for, grant hungry, hoaxing scientists. 🙂

Even Exxon is calling BS on your BS.

monckton

The only comment mentioning me that any senior executive of Exxon Mobil has made, as far as I know, was by Rex Tillerson, the then newly-appointed chief executive, in 2006, when I had published a letter to Crowe and Boxer telling them not to try to stifle the free speech that the United States Constitution guarantees to its citizens. He said to one of his board meetings: “That letter seems to have gone everywhere.”

Apart from that, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. However, no serious scientist would dispute that the temperature records are as I display them to be, for it is a simple matter to download the data, perform the calculations and publish the graphs, which will not look any different to mine. So don’t be childish. If you have a serious scientific point to make, then make it. If all you can do is repeat mere yah-boo, then don’t bother.

jmac

I’m talking about your childish fetish for calling people “communists”. Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS. And I seriously doubt you ever met Rex Tillerson. Prove it, show us some written documentation, otherwise I call BS on that too, since everything else you say is BS.

monckton

And where did I say I’d met Rex Tillerson?

I call the anonymous, paid, climate-Communist trolls that infest these sites cowardly anonymous paid climate-Communist trolls for the good and sufficient reason that that is what they are. It is an unfailing mark of the Socialist – whether National Socialist, Communist Socialist or Environmentalist Socialist – to believe whatever Party Line is handed down, and to go on believing it and parroting it for long after it has reached its sell-by date.

If there had been a little more intelligent comment from jmac or Robert or CB or Icarus62 or any of the others who appear not only here but on dozens of other threads with depressing regularity and still more depressing lack of the slightest interest in the objective truth, one would suspect that perhaps they were not, after all, paid trolls. But they are – and lavishly paid at that. And all for nothing. For, in order to get this particular scam going, it was necessary for the climate Communists to make lurid predictions. They first did so in the late 1980s, and the IPCC joined in the fun in 1990.

But now, inevitably, those prejudiced and baseless predictions are not coming to pass. On the satellite data, there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months. The terrestrial data would have shown something similar, had there not been a co-ordinated arrangement between the controllers of the datasets to make adjustments that had the effect of falsely getting rid of the Pause that all of them had shown until a couple of years ago. The RSS and UAH data continue to show the Pause, but the three terrestrial datasets, with less universal coverage and inadequate standardization of methodology and equipment, do not. Something is wrong somewhere, and my postings provide the data that allow people who are interested in the truth to see the data for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

And I do not thing the climate-Communist trolls would waste so much of their time with their hate-speech here unless they and their paymasters in the various lavishly-funded environmental-Socialist advocacy groups did not think these graphs were wrecking what little is left of the credibility of the Party Line.

In the end, like it or not, those original exaggerated predictions will prove to be the undoing of the IPCC. For they will not come to pass. And, in your heart of hearts, you begin to suspect that that may be true.

jmac

Well, if even Exxon knows your BS is just BS, are they communists too. 🙂 Didn’t you have one paper you couldn’t get published anywhere except by some sort of Communist China organizations?

Can heartily recommend the Woodfortrees site. You don’t have to take my word or Monckton’s for anything but can check yourself.

monckton

The graphs since 1979 show warming at a rate equivalent to just 1.2 K/century: but that is well below half of the central estimate predicted by IPCC in 1990.

And determining a trend from 1979 tells us nothing about whether a trend from 1997 to the present has been accurately determined. The trend since 1997 is zero, even though the anthropogenic forcings that are supposed to be driving the warming are supposed to be increasing at what is supposed to be an accelerated rate.

The widening discrepancy between prediction and observation, between theory and practice, does not inspire much confidence in the over-politicized process of the IPCC. There is at present no basis whatsoever for alarm about Man’s influence on climate.

Mobius Loop

The graphs since 1979 …… that seems a bit vague, best to look at some, first, one of the early ones ….

…. running a bit low but as you yourself admitted in the article we are heading into a strong El Nino period that is likely to bring temperatures back towards the center of the model predictions.

monckton

As the head posting makes quite clear, even a strong el Nino will not bring global mean surface temperature up even to the lower bound of the prediction that the IPCC made in that year. The scare was based on the original predictions. Those predictions have now been proven to have been wild exaggerations. On the CMIP5 models, the much-adjusted recent predictions, one would not expect to see more than 0.5 degrees’ warming by 2100, which is scarcely a problem, is it?

Mobius Loop

Deeply dishonest misdirection.

Yes the initial predictions where high but the IPCC addressed this by the second cycle of research and publishing.

Don’t you think you should give an accurate overview of the issue if you want people to understand.

The above chart is deliberately misleading – indeed, it is the subject of an ongoing fraud investigation. The reason why it is fraudulent is that those who compiled it deliberately omitted to show the trend-lines of observed temperature change alongside those of predicted change; for, had they done so, it would have been apparent to all that each of the successive predictions of the IPCC has been excessive – a fact that the graph you reproduce was falsely intended to conceal.

Of course, this is a relatively small fraud, but it is part of a connected series of far more serious frauds that the security services and police forces of several nations have been investigating ever since the Climategate emails that let so much daylight into the corruption of the academic climate-science establishment.

One should try to find peer-reviewed sources wherever possible. Reviewers would – and certainly should – have made the points I have made about the self-evident defects in the above graph.

Mobius Loop

What a load of old tosh. The graph shows a range of IPCC predictions against the actual recorded temperatures. Anyone wanting to make a further point can add trend lines.

For it to be fraudulent it would have to misrepresent the information

………. and on that point your own graphs as displayed in figs 2 & 3 are a much better example of fraud.

A close look reveals something very odd about the second one, so I overlaid them:

You have hiked up the green line showing the IPCC temperature predictions from 2005 exaggerating the difference between this and the RSS data set.

The purple line positions the 2005 prediction line with the same starting point as the 1990 red prediction line allowing a like for like comparison and aligning more closely with the overlay with all the prediction lines I posted previously.

On another note, your grand investigation of Climategate fraud has had 6 years to work it out, so where are the prosecutions? Or is this just one more lie from the big book of Monckton fantasies?

Or perhaps the 9 separate investigations that cleared the scientists of any wrong doing in this ludicrous non scandal are more relevant.

monckton

Fig. 1b shows the small warming rate on the mean of the HadCRUT4, GISS and NCDC datasets. Try learning to read the head posting.

Mobius Loop

And I said that you FOCUS on one data set and have a BRIEF AND DISMISSIVELY worded reference to the others.

Given the central importance of the temperature data sets I would describe combining three data sets into one, while ignoring the Japanese Meteorological Association’s information all together as a very BRIEF summary of a lot of core information.

monckton

Don’t blub. If you want to produce your own graphs, write your own software or borrow someone else’s. My graphs, which are correctly determined and presented, show quite well – on all datasets, even the terrestrial tamperature datasets in which no one can now place any credence – that global warming (if it is happening at all) is not happening at anything like the predicted rate. Some of the reasons for the ever-growing and damaging discrepancy are to be found in my published scientific papers.

Mobius Loop

Graphs?

Here is a summary of the 4 main terrestrial data sets all of which show warming post 1998:

Interesting that even you agree that we are likely to see warming in the months ahead that would bring the temperature trend back towards the center of the model projections.

“The current el Niño, as Bob Tisdale’s distinguished series of reports here demonstrates, is at least as big as the Great el Niño of 1998. The RSS temperature record is beginning to reflect its magnitude.

From next month on, the Pause will probably shorten dramatically and may disappear altogether for a time. “

monckton

Why do the paid climate-Communist trolls endlessly repeat the lies they are paid so handsomely to tell from behind a safety-blanket of anonymity? The warming of the coming months will not even lift global temperatures to the lower bound of the extravagant 1990 prediction, equivalent to a near-linear warming of 1 degree by 2025, that was made by the IPCC in 1990.

And if you are incapable of determining the least-squares trend on the UAH data from May 1997 to October 2015, a period of 18 years 6 months without any global warming, precisely as I had said, then don’t parade your ignorance here. Go and learn some math.

Mobius Loop

It’s a mark of how pathetically threadbare your argument is that you have to resort to such a cheap trick to come anywhere close to making a point.

For anyone interested in reality, Monckton here is referring to the IPCC’s VERY FIRST projections carried out TWENTY FIVE Years ago.

What Monckton DOES NOT TELL YOU is that the IPCC corrected their projections in 1995, significantly reducing the projected warming, nor
does he tell you that the IPCC further refined their projections three more times over the following 20 years. This diagram provides a neat summary.

And this one shows the current model that Monckton doesn’t like, related to temperature showing the most recent temperature rise as reflected in the terrestrial data sets that Monckton really, really, really doesn’t like.

The rate of warming since February 1997 is exactly as I have shown it in the head posting. It is a warming of 0.21 degrees. This counts, statistically speaking, as “barely significant”, since the published combined coverage, bias and measurement uncertainties are 0.16 degrees. It is equivalent to just 1.1 degrees/century, which is little more than one-third of the 2.8 degrees/century predicted by IPCC, as its central estimate, in its 1990 First Assessment Report.

The central point is not only that the two datasets with the most complete coverage – RSS and UAH – show no global warming at all for getting on for 19 years, but also that the terrestrial tamperature datasets, despite numerous adjustments that account between them for just on half of all 20th-century warming, still show so very much less warming than had been predicted.

Mobius Loop

In anticipation of being called childish …… liar, liar, pants on fire.

monckton

When I was six I was taught not to chant Socialist slogans such as yours. You are unable to refute any of the fact stated above, and, accordingly, you tacitly concede that they are correct. So kill the sloganizing, learn some science, and grow up.

jmac

This is the same Heartland Institute the Tobacco companies used to deny the science that tobacco causes cancer. Millions died. These people are the most vile among us. They have no values whatsoever, and are willing to lie their butts off about anything, as long as there is money to be made.

Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

Get your facts straight Jmac!
It was already well established in the late 1950’s that smoking caused cancer. In 1964 the Surgeon General recognized smoking could cause lung cancer. The Heartland Institute didn’t even exist back then. It was founded in Chicago in 1984. GET EDUCATED!

Banerjee the lead reporter of that article from Inside Climate News stated: “We never said Exxon stopped its research, nor suppressed the results.”

Exxon didn’t know about AGW decades ago, because there was no scientific certainty. Even today there isn’t any empirical evidence that CO2 is the driver of climate.

Did you know that Inside Climate News is funded by anti-oil and gas foundations?
No bias there what so ever! s/.

jmac

Did you know that even Exxon knows your BS is BS?

Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

planet8788

So i take it you don’t use any electricity made by coal/oil/or gas?

Ahhhh now the truth comes out.. you are just an ignorant socialist utopian.

jmac

Even Google says you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

Another leftist who also likes importing cheap labor from other countries. Another globalist in short. Another liar. Another fool.

jmac

So even Exxon and Google know you are a bunch of liars really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And your response is to double down on stupid.

planet8788

Exxon certainly hasn’t said that. And Schmidt is your communist butt buddy… Totally not a climate scientist… nor a chemist. Are the satellites lying too? Did the Koch bros. program them?

jmac

Even the Koch bros know you are lying.

Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. (The BEST Study)

How can anyone not know that? The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

planet8788

The satellites are lying too?
You are the ones killing AFricans.. The Kochs build hospitals.
You are nothing but a big fat communist hypocrite.

My old Republican party does most of that now (I left when the Cato Institute suggestion to use “Leninist” propaganda, and implied soft sabotage, seemed to be so corruptly implemented in the 1996 Newt Gingrich/Frank Luntz GoPac memo, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control).” See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm

Though implemented by the Republican party for political purposes, it seems the model Exxon likes as they try to create doubt about their own science now. Why not ask their original scientists whether they think the current efforts are science, politics, or just plain propaganda for profit?

Robert

Well, we are at monckton’s homesite…. and the sycophants are following his best examples….
“…communist butt buddy.”

planet8788

When the troll starts to post something of substance. I will respond with something of substance.

Robert

Another example…”troll”

monckton claims he knows I earn 155k +35k in expense account and even names my employer….
That sounds like trolling….

planet8788

Still waiting for a post of any substance…. It’s getting kind of old.

planet8788

Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluaing Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge
Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story

“Exxon funded the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker, who cast the single no vote earlier this year against a symbolic “sense of the Senate” resolution that climate change was real and not a hoax. The resolution passed 98-1. Wicker, who received $14,000 from Exxon, voted no.”

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years in the Northern Hemisphere, where such assessment is possible (medium confidence). The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist (Figure SPM.1a). {1.1.1, Figure 1.1}” SPM ipcc.ch

planet8788

In 1981, The 1940’s were the hottest… The temperature record has been massively manipulated.
Read Hansen et. al 1981. See what it looked like then.

Tell us exactly how much. When. Where.
Seems a bit odd that in a field full of new research, you have to go back a third of a century to show us something you think sports your claim….

planet8788

How much what?
Page 961. Temperature chart.
Compare it to today’s.

Is that hard to understand? It will show you how much it has been adjusted.

Robert

Oh, eyeballing.. so sciency.

planet8788

You can take out your ruler if you want.

Robert

Or you could do an analysis of the data.
And show the sources that have been informing your opinion.

planet8788

I have analyzed it. It is a chart. It shows 1940 being much hotter. It shows significant cooling after 1940. That cooling has been erased.
You can’t read a chart? You are just as smart as that other dolt on here aren’t you.

Robert

Show us the “I have analyzed it”. Funny how you can’t cite something actually published….

Actually, not funny.

planet8788

I am citing published work you moron. Hansen, et al. 1981. I posted the link 5 times.
LOOK AT IT YOU FUCKING MORON.

Look it up… It’s on the NASA website. Look at the temperature chart. THis was right before he turned into a raving lunatic and started changing the record drastically. (ACtually he had already started probably.)

planet8788

Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resource

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

The deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

planet8788

Yep… You are the satellite data denier… and you describe yourself perfectly… Congratulations.

jmac

Exxon knows your BS is just BS. Desperate times for the liars – as Google calls you.

The evidence just keeps on mounting. Lot of evidence there in those dossiers.

ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge

Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story.

““In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner,” Exxon said in its 2007 Corporate Citizenship report.”

Record ice growth this fall in the Arctic… All those Hiroshima bombs of heat doing their thing. Now above 2005 levels for area… 19 years with no warming. 10 years with no melting.
Greenland also having a second stellar year of snowfall.

planet8788

JMAC,

When are you going to post actual facts? Never… Got it.

planet8788

I’m going to dissect this post which the anti-capitalist JMAC troll down below keeps posting. Here is the link.

It quotes an Exxon “scientist” giving a presentation. Apparently these neo-communists think this is some type of smoking gun because they are brain dead.

“In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” Black told Exxon’s Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later. It was July 1977 when Exxon’s leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis. A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon’s Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.”

Just like now… all of this is pure speculation. The past has been cooled more than present has warmed. UTTER GARBAGE.

Robert

ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge
Under pressure from shareholders, company promised eight years ago to stop funding climate denial – but financial and tax records tell a different story

“Exxon funded the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker, who cast the single no vote earlier this year against a symbolic “sense of the Senate” resolution that climate change was real and not a hoax. The resolution passed 98-1. Wicker, who received $14,000 from Exxon, voted no.”

Did you read the article? There is no warming. The satellites say so. And the only warming in the surface temperature record is MANN-Made.

Robert

Yes, Monckton makes that claim.

No actual scientist says that, even the guys in charge of those satellites.
That should give you a clue.
Though I doubt it does…

planet8788

That’s because the guy in charge of satellits would probably get fired. The data is what the data is… and even the guy in charge of the satellites doesn’t have a good explanation… If he does… what is it? WHAT IS IT?

Robert

Start by reading how the sat data Ned adjusting. On the sat website.

“WHAT IS IT?”

planet8788

Not every other week like the surface data. They are on rev 6. Surface record on rev. 6000… all in one direction. Whatever it takes to support global warming.
Meanwhile sea ice stable. Antarctic ice stable. yada yada yada.

Robert

Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Look at what the temperature record looked like then. Compare it to what it looks like now. If ice is stable now, 1890’s must have been an ice age.

jmac

Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

What did they know? Don’t just put a link.
We don’t know anything except that the temperature record has been mangled. And all the models have been way off.

jmac

So, Exxon knows you are full of BS, yet you don’t? Am I right?

planet8788

You are the one denying the satellite data, the sea ice data. The Great Lakes data.
You still haven’t summarized for me, or anyone, what exactly Exxon knew….
You are too stupid too even be able to write a scientific sentence. the best you can do is: I hate capitalism.

Robert

Ah, still using insults instead of citations…

jmac

Has he called you a communist yet? This guy is apparently some kind of wannabe understudy to Monckton, as you well know that is one of Moncktons fall back positions. 🙂

Robert

As of now, it looks like you are the sole recipient….

jmac

Bummer. lol

planet8788

Hansen et. al, 1981… Page 961

jmac

Capitalism? Apparently far right wingers and their think tanks like the Heartland Institute think it is ok for a company or anyone to knowingly sell a product that they know can do harm (even cause death) to you and your friends. And use profits made from said product, to sponsor disinformation about the peer reviewed science warnings about the dangers of the product. They call that capitalism, especially when they get to have society pay for the damage done. The deniers are just immoral people with no values, that are willing do people harm, even let them die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

planet8788

Satellites = NO warming
Surface Temp. Record = massively manipulated.

Exxon doesn’t know squat…
Climastrologists dont know squat.

every model has been wrong… Just like AR5 showed.

Robert

Hmmm, Chapter 9 says you are lying.
Which would be a real good reason why you didn’t actually quote the source

Previously spewed by planet8788, “…every model has been wrong… Just like AR5 showed.”

This increase in confidence in the main conclusions in the AR5 SPM seems unwarranted based on the text, figures and analyses in the main WG1 Report, and also in comparison with the conclusions from the AR4. Several key elements of the report point to a weakening of the case for attributing the warming of human influences:

Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming

Robert

Ah, the unpublished blogging v the rest of the scientific community…
Gee, so hard to decide..
Wait, no.Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?
Examples:

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?
Examples:

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?
Examples:

Example of why you should examine the URL and the sponsoring organization:

Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic?
Examples:
Example of why sources should be verified:

Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?
Examples:

Judith Curry is published. Thank you very much… She is much more qualified than you.
You are clueless.

Robert

Not the blog post you cited.
Now you are doing logical fallacies.

jmac

I give you Lord Monckton a paid shill for the fossil fuel boys, the man that created the myth about the lack of warming for the ignorant denier blogs. A short video of the sociopath in action.

Robert

That should be reposted early and often!

jmac

I believe that the emerging story of what Exxon knew, and when they knew it, shows that the differences have never really been about the science questions – even the major oil companies knew the basic science truths 4 decades ago. They simply made a moral decision that the lives of the next ten thousand generations of human beings were not as important as their own profits, and we are now witnessing the early impacts of that decision.

At this point the deniers are just immoral creatures with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

planet8788

Nobody knows it now. That’s why the IPCC can’t nail down the number.

jmac

Even Exxon knows it and Google says you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

What is the number? If everybody knows it. If we double CO2, how much warming?

planet8788

Yawn… You’re killing AFrican children every day.

Robert

Seems your responses are generating a lot of replies that don’t point to any evidence of any sort.
That is a pretty good indictment of the denialist position.

planet8788

There is no evidence to refute except ad hom attacks. Probably you are JMAC. You have the same low intelligence.

Robert

Well, no need to watch Comedy Channel….
“…refute except ad hom attacks. Probably you are JMAC. You have the same low intelligence.”

planet8788

Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Meanwhile, all the data except the data that is manipulated every two weeks, shows AGW is full of bunk.

planet8788

19 years… 19 years no warming… It’s not a short period. You are a moron of the highest degree.

Robert

Also, it isn’t a claim supported in the science. Just this blog….

planet8788

It’s supported by the data from the satellites. It is supported by the science. It is the science.

Robert

It is monckton’s cherrypicked science.

planet8788

Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP est to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?
Examples:

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?
Examples:

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?
Examples:

Example of why you should examine the URL and the sponsoring organization:

Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic?
Examples:
Example of why sources should be verified:

Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?
Examples:

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

Relevance

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

Authority

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?

Accuracy

Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic?

Purpose

Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

No.. Climastrologists are the ones predicting doom but only can create it in models while the rest of the world’s weather keeps improving and sea levels continue rising at the same boring rate they have for the last several thousand years.

Robert

Ah, so a strawman. Thanks!

planet8788

Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Even Google says you are just a bunch of liars, hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt…

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

Eric Schmidt is the most scientific person you have quoted today… but still no science.

jmac

Oh yeah, even the scientist that worked at Exxon even call BS you you.

jmac

If you’ve got some kind of credible science that will disprove man made climate change, you have got to be some kind of stupid to not get a billion dollars from Exxon and have such study completed, published and peer reviewed in a credible scientific journal.

So, yeah, you represent a bunch of liars trying to create doubt, just like Big Tobacco had their sociopaths working for them to create doubt about the cancer causing properties of tobacco.

In its reportage on climate change research at ExxonMobil, the Los Angeles Times made a very telling editorial decision.

The paper chose not to publish the document it cites as Exhibit A in its case against us: a 1989 presentation to Exxon’s board of directors by senior company scientist Duane Levine.

I have no doubt why the newspaper doesn’t want the public to see this document.

When you read it – which you can do here – it soon becomes clear that the document undercuts the paper’s claims that ExxonMobil knew with certainty everything there is to know about global warming back in the 1980s yet failed to sound alarms.

By deliberately hiding this report from readers (while simultaneously citing it to make damaging claims about our corporation’s history of scientific research), the Los Angeles Times undermines the already low levels of trust in the media and in the media’s ability to cover issues of science and policy with accuracy and fairness.

Here’s what the L.A. Times wrote in its most recent piece:

Duane Levine, Exxon’s manager of science and strategy development, gave a primer to the company’s board of directors in 1989, noting that scientists generally agreed gases released by burning fossil fuels could raise global temperatures significantly by the middle of the 21st century — between 2.7 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit — causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise, “with generally negative consequences.”

Case closed, or so the Times would have you think.

But here’s the crucial part the L.A. Times left out from the very first page of Levine’s presentation (PEG stands for “Potential Enhanced Greenhouse,” by the way):

There are two types of Antarctic ice scientists use to gauge climatic activity: sea ice and land ice on the continent. This year, satellite data found both to be increasing in mass, rather than shrinking, a reflection of the complexity of global climate change and Antarctic weather patterns.

A recent analysis from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center showed a net gain of 82 billion tons of continental ice per year between 2003 and 2008, a net gain due to snowfall in the region. This runs contrary to some past data, including theIntergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s 2013 report, sparking some controversy.

Robert

Especially if one makes the conscious choice to believe blog analysis…

You are citing a press release.
I’d suggest reading on past the headline. Para on provides some details that don’t fit your claims.

planet8788

I read the whole thing.

Para what?

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

Robert

Para 6

planet8788

So not everyone agrees… The science isn’t settled… It should be by now… When so many models have failed.

Robert

Chapter nine IPCC

planet8788

What about it moron.

Robert

“moron”
Sciency….

planet8788

Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general ategories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Information

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

It’s okay… Climate Change is impossible to disprove… you can always fall back on the excuse that Global Warming Theory actually predicted this…

planet8788

Thanks for yet another set of unsupported assertions.

Please continue showing us you (and so many other denialists) don’t have a working sense of what is taught in terms of intellectual rigor and honesty:

Evaluating Iformation

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!https://www.gettysburg.edu/lib…

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

Since the 1970 had satellites that can measure the extent of sea ice. Therefore, we know with certainty that there are considerably less sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere than 35 years ago. During the last about 10 years the melting has accelerated, and especially below the minimum spread in September can observe large changes. Overall, the ice in the Arctic Ocean has never been thinner and more vulnerable than now.

In fact, when Antarctica stops melting (it has been melting for 20,000 years) the interglacial will be over.

VooDude

I’d have been happy if Antarctica just stopped contributing to sea-level rise now, but this is sooooo much better. This shows that Antarctica had stopped contributing in 1992, many years ago, and ❝…Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,…❞

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870184797947789c33424fa949ac3609325786d08b13cc8736417e9b1dfcc4b5.jpg”According to the new analysis of [old] satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet [actually] showed a net gain of 112 billion tons [Gt] of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to [an increase of only] 82 billion tons [Gt] of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. … ❝Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.❞ Zwally added that his team ❝…measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.❞”

”❝The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,❞ Zwally said.”

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

Relevance

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

Authority

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?

Accuracy

Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic?

Purpose

Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

Relevance

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

Authority

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?

Union of Concernced Scientists are bunch of Communist whackos… Haven’t been write on a single issue since they were formed.

Robert

I’m not sure what you are attempting,, at least get it complete… and include the url

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

Relevance

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

Authority

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?

Accuracy

Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic?

Purpose

Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?

The fundamentals of global warming have been well established for generations. Fossil fuel companies have almost certainly been aware of the underlying climate science for decades.

As early as 1977, representatives from major fossil fuel companies attended dozens of congressional hearings in which the contribution of carbon emissions to the greenhouse effect was discussed. By 1981 at least one company (Exxon) was already considering the climate implications of a large fossil fuel extraction project.

—
Yet here we are, 2015 and the IPCC still doesn’t know how much the earth will warm… 1.5C 4 C? Who knows. 30 years after the science was already “Established” still nothing but guesses and wrong predictions.

Thank you for providing a source invaluable for teaching rhetoric, semantics, and logical fallacies!

planet8788

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

Relevance

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

Authority

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?

Union of Concernced Scientists are bunch of Communist whackos… Haven’t been write on a single issue since they were formed.

The Daily Mail and Telegraph get it wrong on Arctic sea ice, again
Coverage of a recent paper on Arctic sea ice and climate change suggests conservative media can’t seem to grasp the concept of long-term trends

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

Relevance

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

Authority

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?

Accuracy

Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic?

Purpose

Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?

.❝my neighbor’s momy is making $98 HOURLY on the lap-top❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
3tpe…..
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorldEmploymentVacanciesReportEdu/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

I’m pretty sure the law of identity is why Interplanet Janet can’t do that walk-through.

“NASA is unreliable because NASA is reliable” pretty much defeats itself logically.

I guess it could be considered performance art… if one were feeling generous about what one considers art…

“the ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998.”

climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224

Allen Eltor

Here’s how it shakes out: there is a LAW written SPECIFICALLY FOR ATMOSPHERIC THERMODYNAMICS. It FORMALLY FORBIDS your RELIGION being TRUE. Do you KNOW the NAME of the LAW written for the thermodynamics of the atmosphere?

LoL The atmosphere warms the earth, are you one of those GuBMuNT SkuLeRs who thinks that along with

‘Pot is Like Heroin’ and there’s thousands of pages of peer review to prove it? LoLoL what a buncha

You are really lost when it comes to science. Stick to balancing books.

Allen Eltor

My field is radiation communications and instrumentation electronic engineering.

You are a member of ”The Magic Gas Made A Frigid Gas Bath A Heater” church,

a religion that teaches the atmosphere warms the earth, not chills it.

And that the main cooling gases are the core of the ”giant heater in the sky from the magic gases.”

DavidAppell

Whatever your field, your understanding of physics is atrocious. (And I say that having a PhD in physics.)

You need to take a few real classes in physics, and this time, pay attention.

Allen Eltor

ALL you HAVE to DO is EXPLAIN how SOMETHING IMMERSED in a FRIGID
FLUID
SELF REFRIGERATED BATH
got

WARMER than when it was WARMED with MORE LIGHT in VACUUM

and you’ll be thermodynamically competent.

Emote that sh*** like you’re on a big stage so we all FEEL you believing in it the way you SAY you believe in it being possible.

They fact you’ll even say it marks you as a f****g public school kid who simply repeats what you’re told.

MAKE US SEE A REFRIGERATED BATH
WARMING an OBJECT heated with MORE LIGHT without a
REFRIGERATED BATH.

We’ve all been waiting for W E E K S . You’re STALLING again.

DavidAppell

Diffraction in a gas? What the hell are you talking about? You are writing gibberish, literally.

Allen Eltor

You’re a magic gas billy who thinks the atmosphere is a heater.

DavidAppell

The atmosphere isn’t a heater. This isn’t difficult to understand.

Why are you warmer when you put on a coat? The coat clearly isn’t a heater….

Allen Eltor

Stop your pathetic attempt to make adding more of the GREEN HOUSE GASES creating 20% diffraction COOLING will MAGICALLY create magic because you wish it did, warming.

You need to be able to explain your CHURCH in means any other thermodynamicist can understand and not have us,
have the entire thread,
mocking you for your inability to predict ahead of time what happens to a thermometer output when MORE and LESS energy hit it.

Allen Eltor

There is a sphere rotated in vacuum, illuminated by a nearby glowing object. Surface embedded with sensors, energy in is maximum, energy out is minimum: modes of energy in are one; modes of energy out are one.

An insulating gas envelope is suspended around the sphere such that through diffractive or diffuse, reflective losses, 20% energy never reaches sensors which previously did.

This reduction of energy to sensors is described as:

(a) warming
(b)cooling

Energy sensors reflect this loss of energy through depicting

(a)less energy arriving than when, more energy was arriving,

(b)more energy arriving, than when more energy was arriving.

How many modes of cooling have been created by the atmosphere?
Name them.

How many modes of warming have been created by the atmosphere?
Name them.

When 20% energy in has been reduced through diffraction the temperature of the insulating envelope is still many degrees COOLER
than the temperature of the surface. Incidental turbulent contact between COLD gas molecules and WARM surface molecules
creates a SECOND MODE of COOLING called CONDUCTION.

When COLD GAS washes a WARM sensor this contact creates

(a)cooling

(b)warming

How many modes of cooling have been added by the atmosphere?
Name them.

How many modes of warming have been added by the atmosphere?
Name them.

Don’t be wrong because you’ve only got one more shot at even proving you know the difference between hot and cold gubmunt schooler.

One of the species of gas molecules lies chilled to the liquid state across 70% of the surface of the sphere.

It evaporates from the surface changing phase, taking energy with it to higher regimes. Upon loss of energy it condenses changing phase again – and returns to the surface more rapidly than if it didn’t solidify to ice.
This ACCELERATION of COOLING is called CONVECTION. It represents an ADDITIONAL MODE of COOLING created by the atmosphere.

This is the THIRD MODE of COOLING c.r.e.a.t.e.d. by the atmosphere.

Named they are Diffraction (shading) Conduction (scrubbing) and Convection (phase change refrigeration)

What is the number of modes of warming created
by the turbulent, frigid, insulating envelope? Name them.

Do so in such way the entire thread doesn’t laugh at you to your face.

Name the law of thermodynamics written to describe the atmosphere.

What is the centerpiece of that law that makes it possible for it to bridge and bond, the physics and calculations of all the gas laws into one?

What is it’s name, and what does it represent?

C’mon, HiLLBiLLY
let’s HEAR it from the GuBMuNT SCHuLe HICK
who has HUNDREDS of AUTHORS
who has HUNDREDS of PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES
who has MILLIONS of PAGES of CRITICAL REVIEW
about how Pot is Like Heroin and if you don’t think so, you go to jail.

Your CHURCH has told you about a FRIGID GAS ENVELOPE
that Magically, turned into a big old giant heetur up thair! Ya’W!

That’s the problem with you low information voters, you seek a government employee to think for you because one PUT YOU through
POT
is
like
HEROIN
school.

DavidAppell

No law of thermodynamics forbids anthrogenic warming.

Allen Eltor

The gas law of thermodynamics written FOR the atmosphere formally forbids green house gas warming or any other type warming by atmospheric gases.

The atmosphere is many degrees colder than the surface of the earth and the reason the temperature of the earth is less than at Emax conditions if there were no atmosphere
is firstly due to the presence of the green house gases blocking about half the sun’s infrared.

If there were more green house gases they would block more incoming infrared, it’s how they reduce energy to the surface of the earth 20% when they create the cooling mode known as diffraction loss or diffraction reduction of energy to the surface of the earth, a sphere rotating in vacuum, illuminated by energy from a nearby glowing light.

DavidAppell

You have a completely wrong understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Sad.

DavidAppell

“diffraction loss???” This is utter gibberish.

It’s well know how the greenhouse effect works, and it has nothing to do with diffraction. For Pete’s sakes, please take a physics course.

DavidAppell

“The atmosphere is many degrees colder than the surface of the earth and the reason the temperature of the earth is less than at Emax conditions if there were no atmosphere is firstly due to the presence of the green house gases blocking about half the sun’s infrared.”

Utter drivel.

The temperature of the surface of the Earth is GREATER (288 K) than if there were no atmosphere (255 K). This 33 K difference IS the greenhouse effect.

Seriously, have you ever studied any physics at all?

Allen Eltor

You’ve got the thermodynamic chops of a ”Magic Gas Made A Heater In The Sky” church member

in good standing.

Several hundred years men searched for a law of thermodynamics which predicted accurately the observed physics of industrial processes such as combustion.

After many hundreds of years they wrote the law that bonded ALL the OTHER gas laws.

The SOLE inclusion by mankind to make the law that bonded, bridged, and made ALL the OTHER GAS LAWS WORK

was to assign every single gas in the atmosphere

from
nitrogen
to
Carbon Dioxide
to
Oxygen
to
Methane
to
Argon
to
Radon

all the EXACT SAME ENERGY in JOULES per MOLE of GAS.

That ENERGY is REPRESENTED in the law of thermodynamics WRITTEN for the ATMOSPHERE
is the

‘ ‘ R ‘ ‘ in

PV = nRT

P is obviously Pressure
V is obviously Volume
n is simply the number of moles gas
R is the UNIVERSAL GAS CONSTANT named for Frenchman Renalt/Renault and the RATIO he used, in his work that contributed greatly to the WRITING of the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS
WRITTEN to DESCRIBE the thermodynamics of the atmosphere.

When SOLVING for TEMPERATURE
ALL the GASES get the SAME IDENTICAL GAS CONSTANT
and for those situations where a gas is pure such as in a volcanic vent or lab flask
the individual species are given INDIVIDUAL energy constants based on TOTAL ENERGY.

Not BOND angle which is the parameter determining what frequency light a gas interacts with.

You’re a member of the ”Magic Gas Made A Heater In The Sky” church.

The same one that taught the same public school graduates that pot was like heroin, and they had the critical peer review and endorsement of scientific researchers worldwide, to back it up.

Only problem is
the same class dolts defending that scientific hogwash

sound the same way the ones talking about how Magic Gas Made A Heater do.

DavidAppell

This rant is incoherent. Literally.

NiCuCo

Buried in there, someplace, is a partially right, partially wrong, misunderstanding of the equipartition therom.

DavidAppell

GHGs aren’t “heaters.” They block heat from escaping out the TOA.

A lower cooling rate makes an object. That’s why you sleep under a blanket at night.

DavidAppell

Why do you sleep under blankets at night? Blankets obviously aren’t a heater…. So how to they help you stay warm?

waxliberty

Absolutely. When a scientist successfully and accurately predicts a strengthened modern warming surge before it happens, it proves he’s wrong if we didn’t want to believe it in the first place. They don’t teach reason in these gub’mint schools anymore.

Only they didn’t, because most of that ‘surge’ was on paper only, as we’ve told you. The evidence is there. Everyone who’s bothered to look at it has seen and understood it.

planet8788

I am not talking about his projections… I’m talking about his historical temp data from 1880 to 1980 that he published in 1981. NASA has more than doubled the warming during that period from all their adjustments. Doubled it… from .35C to over .7C. IF this keeps up, 1880 will have been an ice age.

JH: “Homogeneity adjustments are made to local time series of temperature with the aim of removing non climatic variations in the temperature record [Joneset al., 1985; Karl and Williams, 1987; Easterling et al., 1996; Peterson et al., 1998a]. The non-climatic factors include changes of the environment of the station, the instrument or its location, observing practices, and the method used to calculate the mean temperature. Quantitative knowledge of these factors is not available in most cases, so it is impossible to fully correct for them.”

oh you poor sheep..will follow him to the gates of hell I guess… the evidence is CLEAR – they all agreed it had paused for almost two decades, and then, right before the summit (or a year before) – OH we have “artifacts” in the data….. but FIRST you must understand that NOAA and NASA are government entities that only publish to support the president – if you can’t and won’t believe that, then at your own peril – it’s fascism 101 – control the press, who through out all kinds of hysteria, control the government line on the science and you have the former soviet union, all pre-made for people like you that won’t look at the evidence of 2 Billion dollar satellites that were put their to measure changes in global temps – and yet they have seen no rise in almost 20 years.. now that is a science denier, and a politically blindfolded person. Meanwhile the Arctic had the shortest melt season on record, and is blasting through 15 years of ice records, Antarctica has been growing for 15 years, Greenland is putting on record ice not seen in 10 + years either and temps in the interior are MINUS 60C – do you hear that from your beloved leaders?

CB

“you must understand that NOAA and NASA are government entities”

I do understand that!

What’s your point?

If you think NASA and NOAA are unreliable, where are you getting your information?

“The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

DMikeS

Satellite images prove the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in surface area and thickness.
You poor pitiful lemmings. Off the cliff with you.
P.S. Anybody who puts their faith in government in this day and age is delusional.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!! This is about higher taxes and more government power, no more, no less.

Carolina Johnny

Exactly………………….Carbon credits world

Henry Faraday

The problem with stupid people is they are too incompetent to notice how stupid they are.

They seek out information sources that agree with their preexisting conclusions instead of researching the opposing evidence. Intellectual laziness and comfort is why people come to sites like this one… a site entirely paid for by big oil that gives them an excuse to feel safe and correct.

Gezz Raynier

Oil and Gas are paying for the Hoax, they’re not trying to dispel it. Perhaps you’re the one being intellectually lazy and stupid, if you don’t review data from various sources. Or perhaps you do, you go to all the places known to have funding interests linked to government and Shell etc. Do your research and you’ll find Oil and Gas spend big on making you believe that climate change is affected by us.

Allen Eltor

You sound like a hillbilly who thinks the atmosphere warms the planet, like the rest of the GuBMunT SkuLeRs.

Is that right, stupid? The atmusfear’s a BIG oL HEETuR up THAIR in thuh SKY?

waxliberty

Allen, what comical scientific illiteracy you offer, and with such style! 🙂 Thank you for the smile.

Funny, you’re the only one who sounds like a hillbilly, you’re the only one who said that.

FYI, a blanket is actually a physical layer that traps heat rather effectively.

waxliberty

By Allen’s logic, it is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics for a cooler object to heat a warmer object.

Allen believes there is no greenhouse effect at all – do you agree with him?

Allen Eltor

When the earth as a sphere rotating in vacuum of space had no atmosphere sunlight conditions to the surface would be at maximum.
Modes of heating 1: radiant
Modes of cooling 1: radiant.

Immediately upon suspension of a reflective, insulating gas envelope around the sphere, energy deflected to space, never to reach a sensor on earth, comprising 20%, is lost to the surface.

This mode of cooling created by the existence of an atmosphere is called diffraction cooling.
This mode of cooling created by the existence of an atmosphere is by the green house gases.

When steady-state energy transactions resume the temperature of the reflective, insulating envelope is still many degrees COLDER than the surface. Subsequently incidental contact
between the atmosphere’s molecular regimes and surface features, creates the SECOND
mode of cooling
created by the existence of an atmosphere. The green house gases lead the pack in per-molecule removal of energy efficiency.

70% of the surface of the rotating sphere is covered in chilled, liquid or solid species of the atmospheric gas water.
Change of phase evaporation of water creates cooling of the surface.
Subsequent rise in accordance with gravity creates energy dump to lower energy regimes,
with the water changing phase AGAIN, to solid, returning to the surface faster than if it remained
in gas state.
This THIRD mode of COOLING created by existence of an atmosphere is called convection.
This THIRD mode of COOLING is the SECOND created almost solely by the green house gases.

The ones that in your religion, made the sky a heater instead of a frigid fluid bath, shading and scrubbing and phase change refrigerating, the surface of the sphere of the earth as it rotates in vacuum, illuminated by the light of the sun.

waxliberty

In context of global warming, “heating” or “cooling” must be relative to total earth energy budget. Changes of phase etc. within system are just sloshing heat around. Stuff like evaporative cooling does have some radiative cooling because heat is transported higher more efficiently. Anyway, atmospheric physicists account for all of this (to the degree I can translate from your somewhat muddled descriptions) and also greenhouse heat-trapping, i.e. that downwelling infrared you notably omit from your list of factors.

Same comment all internet “alternative physics” guys get – if modern physics has been taught wrong for the last century or whatever it is you believe, go publish your breakthrough proof and get famous. What are you waiting for? Until then you’re a confused guy on the internet, sorry, that’s just the cards.

Allen Eltor

Stop talking in circles this is the simplest phase f matter. If you feel qualified to discuss your church’s teachings about the Green House Gases being a magical heater then EXPLAIN YOURSELF in the SAME, SIMPLE THERMODYNAMIC
STEP by STEP processes EVERYONE ELSE WORLD WIDE discusses a COLD BATH and THERMOMETER in.

There is a spinning sphere in a vacuum without atmosphere illuminated by a light.

THIS ISN’T DIFFICULT, simple minded one.

Light to the sphere surface is 100% available at that distance.

Addition of a reflective insulating gas envelope around the sphere IMMEDIATELY STOPS 20% available light reaching the surface.

THIS ISN’T DIFFICULT, simple minded one.

Upon creation of this FIRST mode of THERMODYNAMIC E.N.E.R.G.Y. LOSS, named diffraction loss,

the atmosphere has created it’s first mode of – WHAT? Of COOLING.

THIS ISN’T DIFFICULT, simple minded one.

Upon accounting for diffraction COOLING by the GREEN HOUSE GAS COOLANTS as well as a small amount of OXYGEN based diffraction cooling with it’s associated warming of the envelope over all,

THE ATMOSPHERIC BATH is STILL MANY degrees COLDER than the SURFACE of the SPHERE.

This isn’t DIFFICULT, SIMPLE MINDED ONE.

Subsequent turbulent impingement or contact between all gas molecules and surface features, creates the SECOND MODE of – what?

C O O L I N G caused by virtue of the EXISTENCE of the ATMOSPHERIC ENVELOPE.

This second mode of COOLING created by the frigid atmosphere is named CONDUCTION.

GREEN HOUSE GAS species WATER leads the pack in COOLING per MOLECULE.

This isn’t DIFFICULT, simple minded ONE. You don’t HAVE any excuse for having believed the atmosphere is a heater. The atmosphere is a frigid fluid bath – self refrigerated, and blocking by the very existence of green house gas COOLANTS 20% total energy to the surface.

When the CONDUCTION cooling is happening there is a simultaneous mode of conduction mode cooling acceleration named
CONVECTION.

All gases participate in CONVECTION with Green House Gas species WATER leading the pack in the most energy lifted PER molecule as in discussion of mode 2 created by the existence of the atmospheric envelope.
Water functions as a single phase conduction molecule participating in simple energy transactions without phase change.

However GREEN HOUSE GAS SPECIES WATER is UNIQUELY and SOLELY ASSOCIATED with ONE mode of COOLING assocated with CONVECTION and this is the

phase change REFRIGERATION process in which water evaporates and rises according to gravity, to emit energy to lower-energy regimes, typically at higher altitudes to
CHANGE PHASE a SECOND TIME
to
RETURN to the SURFACE and RESUME COOLING FASTER
than if it remained in gas phase.

THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT simple minded one, it is the SIMPLEST PHASE of MATTER.

If you have an explanation everyone here will see is as clear in which you can STEP by THERMODYNAMIC STEP,

take us through the PROCESS your CHURCH BELIEVES makes the gases COOLING the earth, a magic heater.

”Cause down to the GuBMuNT PuBLiK sCKooL, THAY dun ToLt’ ME” is not a stepped thermodynamic progression.

They ”ToLt yew down to thuh GuBMuNT PuBLiK Sckool that ‘tair POT is like HEROIN.

Same bullsh** story about how the science is CLEAR
Same bullsh** story about how the science is SETTLED
Same bullsh** story about how they’ve got MILLIONS of CRITICAL peer review PAGES

from THOUSANDS of PAPERS
from HUNDREDS of PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS and ACADEMIC LEADERS in SCIENCE and MEDICINE and YADa yaDa YADa.

I’m not interested in your TESTIMONY of BELIEF.

I’m interested in watching YOU SQUIRREL around like a yard rodent partly brained by a PELLET. A pellet of truth,

that YOU can’t successfully GUESS the OUTCOME of an interaction between a thermometer and some light,

if SOMEONE TELLS YOU the ANSWERS, AHEAD of time.

THIS is NOT complicated, simple minded on, and YOU need to go back and find some more hillbillies who believe in the magical heater, and send them over here for us all to laugh and mock to shame for thinking
FRIGID
REFRIGERATED
GAS BATHS
SHADING the OBJECT immersed in them to a 20% energy reduction BEFORE the COOLING from contact ever gets started,

is a giant magical heater because you went to government school.
Where you spent 12 years and STILL quiver at the thought of STEPPING through a THERMOMETER and a LIGHT.
Because the people taking money from your parents to TEACH you
left you without CONFIDENCE to DESCRIBE COLD GAS and a THERMOMETER and WHAT HAPPENS if you SPRAY the thermometer with the cold gas.

I know, I know. YOU crank types always WANT to have someone listen TO your WEIRDLY emphasized and barely COHERENT rants on the internet. THEY have been teaching it WRONG in classrooms for a CENTURY! And you have the perpetual MOTION machine WORKING in your basement but no one will believe you.

I don’t have the patience to TRANSLATE what you’re trying to say, and talk in circles. There are hundreds of PAGES explaining the greenhouse effect, including by anti-global warming activists. Yes, there are lots of ways the earth loses heat – thankfully, otherwise we’d have cooked long ago. Most of the convection and conduction you describe is relatively moot, from an earth energy budget point of view the question is what is absorbed from space and what is lost to space, that is the only way the energy budget changes, see the first law of thermodynamics. You ignore radiation for some crank reason or another, I’m not that interested. Thinking the greenhouse effect is a “HEATER” is not very bright; presumably you also think people who believe in blankets think that blankets are “magic HEATERS”.

Where do you think the magical downwelling infrared is coming from, my crank friend?

Do you have friends, family and/or professional support for your general feelings of paranoia and rage? (I’m not really kidding about this part.)

NiCuCo

Zippy the Pinhead

Allen Eltor

YOU DON’T HAVE EDUCATION to PROPERLY ANALYZE the BEHAVIOR of a
FRIGID
FLUID
SELF REFRIGERATING BATH
blocking 20% of available energy to the ROCK it’s

SHADING (diffraction losses of 20% due to GHG COOLANTS)
SCRUBBING(conduction in which GHG Water leads in cooling per molecule
REFRIGERATING (with GHG species water’s UNIQUE PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATION)

Now you need to explain to people watching you reeling backward like you’ve been clubbed,

in step by step discrete thermodynamic process

the MODE of ENERGY MEDIATION you BELIEVE to be ASSOCIATED with the Green House Gas coolants. The part that makes them a magical heater.

If you don’t have the courage of your convictions go find someone who can.

waxliberty

yes, I understand very well, as a greenhouse effect denier you’re a member of one of the more notorious and comical crank fringe groups on the internet – one even the organized anti-climate science groups try to distance themselves from – which maintain that you understand “real” physics better than all of the world’s existing textbooks and physicists, all while continually making obvious, absurd errors like describing the mechanism as a “heater” in the sky.

Sadly, you are not even notorious enough to rank on the field guide to climate clowns list, however:

Why aren’t you explaining to us all how the magical heater they taught you in public school, is making the world warmer through step by step thermodynamic process?

You’ve had WEEKS.

Yet here you are with nothing but admission you’re ashamed to discuss your church.

waxliberty

Here’s an accessible walkthrough, Allen. Your friend “Bryan” spent many months trying to push your crank ideas about the 2nd Law in the comments on this site, and was continually corrected by a wide range of physicists but of course believes he ‘won’ the argument as you will believe no matter how many times your errors are clarified. You believe what you believe out of emotional disorders and a fierce dislike of modernity and liberalism or whatever it is that animates your hostility and general craziness. Of course I’m not going to engage much with you – “who is the fool, the fool or the fool who argues with him?” Wise words.

Why don’t you take your campaign to the comments here and see if you can do better than Bryan.

BUT YOU CLAIM you have an appeal to AUTHORITY which means you
can go GET
the ANSWERS from them and come back here and AMAZE us all.

You go get that anwer from them

N.O.W.

We’ve been waiting WEEKS you’re still CRYING and DUCKING and WHINING.

SHOW US
ANOTHER FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH
that makes ENERGY SENSORS show LIGHT WARMED ROCKS
being made
HOTTER
by being IMMERSED and SCRUBBED in the FRIGID FLUID BATH.

Allen Eltor

You need to start describing the magical heating you were taught is happening in the sky so everybody here is
stunned
at the level of clarity and simply perfect thermodynamic step by step process, that is the hallmark of properly done thermodynamics.

You need to show why you think the sky is magically a heater

You need to show your personal understanding of what happens if the class of gases, creating 20% diffraction mode cooling,

becomes abundant to the point it blocks 21% energy to the surface.

You need to turn that into heating or you’re just another magic heater in the sky believing, mouth breathing low information voter class
nobody on the internet shouting that when we are using fire,

we’re making the sky hot.

Allen Eltor

I put up some replies to your senseless bumblebee flight away from pointing out your belief in how your magic sky heater religion accounts for the atmosphere chilling the earth heating it.

They didn’t come up because I was roaming on my tab . You need to say something that makes everyone feel inspired you can properly

analyze a thermometer
receiving more and less energy on it.

Daniel F. Melton

Pearls before swine.

Daniel F. Melton

cb is a paid troll.

Noah_Vaile

How does one get that job?

Daniel F. Melton

ask cb

Leonard Schopenhouer

False statement you make. I was in the room (restaurant in Clear Lake) when Al Gore asked for Golden’s resignation for releasing the Sat data which showed no warming in 2000. You deserve a coat hanger.

VooDude

❝…Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,…❞https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870184797947789c33424fa949ac3609325786d08b13cc8736417e9b1dfcc4b5.jpg❝… the Antarctic ice sheet [actually] showed a net gain of 112 billion tons [Gt] of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to [an increase of only] 82 billion tons [Gt] of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. … ❝Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.❞

So you are suggesting(!?) that (for global-warming advocates) the slowing down in increases is seen as evidence for a warming trend.
Not an actual increase in warming, but a slowdown in the absolute and continuing increase in ice mass. So we’re still getting colder, but perhaps not quite as quickly.

You have to be careful WHEN you grab data from nasa and noaa. If ya happen to get data prior to adjustment, it will not show any resemblance to the data put forth for public consumption. But it will be much closer to reality.

Carolina Johnny

That is their proof…………such as it is.

Daniel F. Melton

Justwaitaminute! If we take the “undisputed truth” of the reverend algore, we have to believe that any increase in CO2 will result in global warming, increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and thus resulting in more ice and snow at the poles. I seen it in his movie, so it must be true. ///sarc

Noah_Vaile

Dear Dan: You are almost eternally correct in that we must consider the source of a statement, perhaps even moreso than considering the sense that the statement makes. Algore is a highly paid and therefore respected demi-scientist and his staements must be taken at face value. Criticizing him is like criticizing a tree. You can say what you want but it will still be a tree… until of course it goes up the chimney as smoke, thereby contributing to the parboiling of the earth. Humor in a jugular vein. Eh?

Daniel F. Melton

algore is as big a fraud now as when he was failing divinity school. What scientific qualification has he acquired through osmosis, since he’s obviously been too stoned to do any study?
Parboiling the Earth by burning plant matter is a net zero energy equation. The energy utilized in producing the plant matter is released in the burning of said plant.
To be effective, humor must have an element of truth, thus mother-in-law jokes and “Here’s your sign” jokes.

Here’s your sign

Noah_Vaile

So who’s funding Gore?

Daniel F. Melton

“carbon credit” fraud, dontchaknow.

sapereaudeprime

Your ignorance is pathetic, even for someone from your sorry intellectual background.

Daniel F. Melton

Deny and denigrate. You fools are so predictable. Offer some untainted evidence, if you can.

Joe333

There are 3 sources of satellite temperature data
UAH, RSS and GISS
GISS is the heavily adjusted federal government version
UAH and RSS line up with each other and GISS does not

VooDude

RSS and UAH use satellites, but a different mix of satellites; they each use their own software. The radiosondes (weather balloon) measurements confirm the satellites.

Evan Jones: ”The surface metrics all use the same GHCN statio-set, and are all converted to ERRST4, and are, therefore, not independent.”

NOAA, and their outfit, NCDC (now known as NCEI) is the SOLE SOURCE of all the data of the global surface temperature. They are the source of the GHCN surface temperature record; also for the ERSST v4 sea surface temperatures. The other so-called independent agencies’ datasets use the source GHCN and ERSST data to make their own datasets, applying their own set of adjustments.

This is why those supposedly “independent” temperatures all agree – they start with the same source data!

Joe333

Right….

RSS and UAH line up and show the hiatus
And the heavily politicized federal government’s GISS does not match up with peer review and shows something very different from everyone else

You very much can, my dear! In fact, it’s easier than it has ever been in the history of humankind!

…you won’t find it on a prostitute’s website, though…

“Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

Yes, and climate alarmists, who worry over fractions of a degree of temperature change that is entirely within established norms for climate variability, are given grants of billions of dollars to produce “studies” that “prove” humans are “significantly” altering global climate. Those grants are given by the same government that pays salaries of NOAA, NASA, EPA, etc.

So, what is your point?

Politicians seek control.

No better control than control over energy (health care is secondary).

Claim humans are bogeymen for using fossil fuels as the most efficient and available energy source.

No proof needed, just say it over and over again, shut out all dissension by name-calling (“climate deniers” “flat earthers” “in the pay of big carbon”) and stifling debate (“settled science”).

Gullible people will believe it, not being educated in sciences and having no clue about perspective.

Demand the only solution is to stop using fossil fuels, except for “developing” countries.

It’s insanity of the highest order.

Global climate models predict 100 year changes of 2-3 degrees Celsius (3.6-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) based on deeply flawed and simplistic climate models. That is more than the climate differences between Richmond, Virginia and Columbia, South Carolina.

Furthermore, the increase in CO2, far from being a “pollutant”, is greening the planet as plant life sequesters more CO2 which increases crop yields. Plants also have a cooling influence on climate.

The warmist campaign against fossil fuels is specious and claims damages way out of proportion to any real changes human influences can create.

Pardonmeforbreathing

You really are a piece of work! Again you resort to undermining character NOT concentrating on scientific facts(ahem…. unmassaged data) which there is I agree a decided LACK of in climobabble. 150K USD a year MY GOD! And how does that compare to the daily income of the Gore Life Form?…. you know that thick necked individual flitting about in his private errrrr jet? Also who taught you how to draw trend lines through data? If you were a “student” of mine you would get a FAIL for ignoring the temperature trend from 1940 to 1980 but hey… I understand…. never let the truth get in the way of a good story…and you STILL have not separated NATURAL effects from demonstrably man made effects! Enjoy your religious experience…. I understand belief and consequent righteous indignation are par for the course of you zealots

Allen Eltor

From the same place Phil Jones was getting his when he admitted in 2005 the world stopped warming in 1998.

”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8.

OK IT HAS but it isn’t but

seven years of data

AND IT
isn’t statistically significant.”

Look around in the world at 2005 databases that indicated NO WARMING since ’98 and slight COOING?

The RAW DATA placed online that way by LAW to stop ADJUSTMENT FRAUD.

2010:
PHIL JONES has been BUSTED in 2009 revelations He and Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth were scamming to hide from a BBC REPORTER the WORLD STOPPED WARMING in ’98. Mann told people YOU issue a press release saying there has been steady warming.
YOU issue a press release saying the same thing.
YOU issue another press release and I’ll have my guy issue one too. DON’T MAKE THIS LOOK COORDINATED.

FEB 2010BBC INTERVIEW with PHIL JONES so HE CAN STAY OUT of JAIL:

BBC: Isn’t it true since 1 9 9 8 there has been no warming and that there has been in fact some slight cooling?”

JONES: YES but ONLY JUST. I HAVE CALCULATED and find there has been NO COOLING since 1 9 9 8 and that there has in fact been slight but not

statistically significant, COOLING.

FAST FORWARD to 2013: JONES has been FIRED the MET OFFICE has GONE OVER records.

The RELEASE a STATEMENT saying there has been NO WARMING since 1 9 9 7 and SLIGHT COOLING.

In looking around to find what database reflects that we find: the RAW DATA PUBLISHED UNADJUSTED is the

DATA BASE that SHOWS THIS to BE the TEMPERATURE in case of

ALL of JONES’ ADMISSIONS ACCIDENTAL and ON PURPOSE to AVOID JAIL

The SAME temperatures referenced in the 2013 Met Office press release.

Barry Stallings

Fox news. That’s where he get’s it. Sad.

waxliberty

Thank God someone is wearing protective headgear and therefore still capable of forming independent thoughts despite the broadcasts of the Government Entities.

I just want to point out that Tom’s narrative about the world turns him into a courageous lone wolf resisting shadowy forces out to destroy everything decent, and therefore to salute him for his courage and fierce dedication to freedom. Thank you Tom!

Tom from one agent of resistance to another can I ask a technical question – aluminum or tin foil? I am considering switching because some unwanted scientific thoughts are getting through when I’m up and exposed on the ground floor some days.

So you are considering switching – which is it you use now? Aluminum, or tinfoil?

Carolina Johnny

True

sapereaudeprime

NOAA’s brief is to gather and interpret data, not to parrot the opinion of the college dropouts in the Republican Congress. Their interpretations of their data are spot on where climate change is concerned. Maybe the doubters should look at the 19th century photos of major glaciers, and compare them to photos taken from the same spot today.

Cranky Old Man

“but FIRST you must understand that NOAA and NASA are government entities that only publish to support the president”.

I know, exactly. And when President Cheney hand picked the 911 Commission, you have to know they lied and ignored the laws of physics, and said a non-symmetrical distribution of spot fires brought down building seven in perfectly symmetrical catastrophic collapse, and, at a free fall rate of speed.

Right?

Barry Stallings

Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power (according to the man who created the term “fascism”). It’s corporate governance.
It’s what we have now.
Recommend reading: “Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism”

demac

The world has warmed 1.5 degrees C since the little ice age about 200 years ago, with most of that warming occurring without any influence from man and man made CO2.

Since the invention of thermometers, in 1880, the global temperatures have increased by 0.8 degree C with half of that increase occurring before 1950 when man made CO2 wasn’t a problem

According to satellite data, there has been no global warming for the last 18.9 years even though CO2 has increased by 10%

New land based temperature stations installed in 2004 through out the US have recorded a 1 degree temperature decrease over the last 10 years.

The latest UN IPCC climate report (AR5) indicated in Chapter 2 that there was a low confidence of any correlation between man made CO2 and extreme weather like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts – which all are at historic lows for both frequency and intensity.

Climate related death have decreased by 98% from 3.4 million deaths in 1934 to 34,000 deaths last year; even though the world’s population has tripled during that time.

So the reality is that there isn’t a link between man made CO2 and catastrophic temperature increases or extreme weather; extreme weather is not getting worst or more frequent; and climate related deaths are a fraction of what they use to be.

The whole climate scare is, and has been, about socialism and the redistribution of wealth from the rich to poor. that is why the UN wants an annual $100 billion climate fund to be establish and paid for by the rich countries so that the UN can tell the world how to live.

CB

“The world has warmed”

That’s right!

…and burning fossil fuels is the reason.

“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

DMikeS

Those whose “research” is paid for by government. Are you blind, stupid or part of the scam?

DavidAppell

Lame. The government funds scientists to do science — whether climate science, medical research, research that goes into your pharmaceuticals, for defense technologies, encryption software, mathematics, materials science, and many more.

Ali_Bertarian

Naive. Grants go to those who those who produce the evidence the politicians, e.g. Obama and Gore, want. Are you really alleging no conflict of interest?

DavidAppell

No politicians wants any particular result. (Except Lamar Smith and Ted Cruz.) They want good science.

Clearly you would sell your opinion for the sake of a grant. Most of us have more intergrity than you.

Scott Peterson

That had to be one of the most idiotic statements made in the history of mankind. Thanks for a great laugh. If you think Al Gore et al did not want a particular result, you either have the IQ of a geranium, or simply have drunk too much of the Jonestown Kool-Aid. Go read about the scientific fraud surrounding DDT in the 60s, which led to tens of millions of unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Go read about the scientific fraud behind silicone breast implants, which led to the bankruptcy of a major corporations. Finally, go read “A disgrace to the profession” which documents the scientific fraud that led to the original “hockey stick” graph which Al Gore used to turn himself into a billionaire. I will assume you can read. Whether you have the intellectual integrity to do so is an entirely different matter.

Mark Steyn knows nothing about science and his book is a cherry picked piece of junk, meant to sucker in gullible people like you.

Daniel F. Melton

algore is a failed divinity student who got into politics by means of his father’s coat tails. Once he bombed out in his attempt to get elected president, he jumped on the global warming bandwagon with all the sincerity of a political prostitute.

DavidAppell

Al Gore is utterly irrelevant to the scientific case for global warming.

I know extreme conservatives want to hate him and they try to that by rejecting global warming, but Al Gore just communicates the science, he doesn’t determine it.

But he is pretty good at what he does. Hence his Nobel Prize.

Daniel F. Melton

algore is a con man using the “panic the sheep” method to push a socialist agenda that he doesn’t believe in. He was awarded the nobel prize for sophistry. There is no science that proves global warming. This is the reason that the raw data and methodology “must remain secret”. Unfortunately for those who think to avoid accountability for the fraud they’ve perpetrated, solar output has been drooping of latehttp://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
but this has been apparently been compensated by other factors defined in the Milankovitch theory and volcanic activity in the Pacific that resulted in an “El Nino”.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6964/full/426239a.html

Allen Eltor

Human bacteria such as yourself have kept marijuana listed as being like heroin for 75 years. If there’s a way to suck up against being wrong, you’re like a bird in a plane engine.

DavidAppell

Marijuana??? You’re blaming me for marijuana?

You have some issues to work out. You’ll need to do that on your own.

Allen Eltor

Same church different doctrine, same low information illiterate twerkers screaming the sky is a magic heater.

We’re all anxious to hear you discuss the signs of your church. Since you don’t have any science.

You DO however have a story about a WARM ROCK put into a FREEZING TURBULENT REFRIGERATED BATH getting HOTTER than when there IS no BATH.

DavidAppell

I don’t belong to any churches.

And your last sentence is utter nonsense.

Allen Eltor

Of COURSE you belong to the CHURCH of MAGIC GAiS made a MIghTiE HEATUR frum a REFRIGERATED light blocking BATH.

Your churche’s words not mine.

BWAH Hah Hah hah hah hah you should have gone to school instead of going into stocking shelves.

DavidAppell

You are still writing like a retard.

Do you honestly not know to write proper English sentences?

Allen Eltor

You have had HOW MANY DAYS NOW to PREACH about your BELIEF in the MAGIC GAS?

You’re in here WHINING. CRYING. Oh… I can’t FUNCTION in the face of all this GRAMMAR.

What has happened to YOU is YOU MET one of those THERMODYNAMICISTS your CHURCH forbids

TELLING THEM EXPLAIN your FAKE PHYSICS.

You’re a FAKE.
Your CLAIM of UNDERSTANDING WHAT you’re even TALKING about is FAKE.
Your CLAIM of having the FIRST BONA FIDE in ANALYZING THERMODYNAMICS so – EVERYONE CAN PLAINLY SEE – YOU know WTF is UP – CHUCK.

You’re a TREMBLING, FRUSTRATED THERMODYNAMICALLY INCOMPETENT FAKE until YOU EXPLAIN

HOW YOU CAME to BELIEVE a FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH made a SUN HEATED ROCK be HOTTER

BY PUTTING IT INTO a FRIGID REFRIGERATED BATH, than it was, when it was NOT in the FRIGID, REFRIGERATED BATH.

And obviously you’re FAR short of the guts or you’d at LEAST have TRIED – you’re a FAKE.

You’re a POSER ON the INTERNET unable to P.R.O.P.E.R.L.Y. ANALYZE a T.H.E.R.M.O.M.E.T.E.R.

And you’re free to move on and try to hustle up somebody else, any time you see fit to do it.

But if I see you I’m gonna ask you about your teachings again because I say you’re a FAKE,

and that – YOU DON’T KNOW HOW to ANALYZE an ATMOSPHERE around a PLANET.

And that NOT ONLY DON’T YOU KNOW, YOU DON’T HAVE THE – what EVER – to just LIMP ALONG and try to FAKE it from ONE of your ELITE WEBSITES about HOW the SUN heats the earth.

And how the atmosphere HEATS it even more than when it was

WARMED with MORE SUNLIGHT
NOT IIN the FRIGID REFRIGERATED atmosphere.

DavidAppell

Prove Al Gore wanted a particular result.

PS: DDT has absolutely nothing to do with climate change, nor has DDT been banned. You swallowed conservative propaganda.

Allen Eltor

You’re so f****g stupid you thought a cold bath was a heater. That’s your integrity level. Too stupid to analyze a thermometer in a freezing cold refrigerated bath right.

DavidAppell

Rant much? Try making sense….

Allen Eltor

That’s ALL you HAVE to DO: MAKE SENSE.

PROPERLY ANALYZE a THERMOMETER immersed in a FREEZING COLD REFRIGERATED BATH so you’re not BARKING

the frigid, self refrigerating atmosphere blocking 20% energy to earth is a heater.

If you’re so incompetent you can’t properly analyze what happens when a thermometer is immersed into a frigid fluid

then what’s your word worth as a member bearing testimony of your church?

The FREEZING FLUID SELF REFRIGERATED BATH KNOWN as the PLANETARY ATMOSPHERE isn’t a magic heater like they told you at church dipshit.

Allen Eltor

You’ve been in here for WEEKS. You won’t take up for your CHURCH.

You INSIST the atmosphere is a ”big giant magic heater” but you can’t detail how you think so.

That’s why they pick people like you – ”graduates’ from public schools

to defend it.

LoLoLoL

Allen Eltor

The atmosphere is a COLD SELF REFRIGERATED BATH. I know AT PUBLIC SCHOOL THEY told YOU

it’s a magic HEATER. BWAH hah hah you don’t even know the atmosphere is colder than the planet.

DavidAppell

You are terribly, terribly confused. You should go back and study physics from the very beginning. I mean like the F=ma beginning.

Allen Eltor

Actually YOU are the one here BARKING about a FRIGID, REFRIGERATED BATH

heating up a ROCK dropped in it. And that of course is PROOF how thermodynamically CONFUSED

you really WERE. Till you got here. NOW you’re not confused.

LoLoLoLoL !

DavidAppell

You don’t understand anything about the science of the greenhouse effect. Sad.

Allen Eltor

Sure I do. I know you’re too AFRAID to DESCRIBE YOUR BELIEF HOW it WORKS, because YOU DON’T HAVE the THERMODYNAMIC CHOPS to PROPERLY ANALYZE a THERMOMETER.

With the ANSWERS GIVEN to you IN ADVANCE.

In actual fact, I’M the ATMOSPHERIC CHEMIST and ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION specialist, and ATMOSPHERIC specialist,
and
YOU’RE the one who got a DARE sticker for YOUR degree. THAT’S what happened to you in THIS train wreck, YOU met a REAL ATMOSPHERIC THERMODYNAMICIST who doesn’t need to CRACK
a
BOOK
to bring you to the point where YOU are AFRAID to PREDICT WHAT DIRECTION a THERMOMETER

is gonna go GIVEN the ANSWER AHEAD of TIME.

So I know it draws low information voter types such as yourself. People needing a church without the discipline of a real religion but with all the feeling good about hating people because you thought you were smarter.

All we have to do is MENTION thermometer and you start CRAWFISHING. FLEEING. LOOKING for a ROCK to HIDE behind. Or under.

Ok well – next time I see you around I’m going to be asking about your religion and you better be marching out the thermodynamic pins at 10, 20, 30, 40 yards, LIKE a CLOCK.

Or YOU’RE gonna WISH you DID. LoL. You can’t BE the SMARTEST THERMODYNAMICIST in the ROOM, and BE TOO AFRAID to TALK OVER the PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT of a THERMOMETER

in the FACE of a SUN WARMED ROCK, and FRIGID REFRIGERATED sun-BLOCKING BATH.

Really you’re as incompetent as any other magic gasser I ever met, and just as quick to CRAWFISH. Not a WORD about your church’s SAVING the WORLD. NOT a WORD about ”Oh what about all the PEOPLE seeing me WORK this NON BELIEVER ?

Pfft you turned and DROPPED your MAGIC GAS CLIMATOLOGY Jr ring and FLED the FIELD being told ”YOU ANALYZE the PROGRESS of THIS THERMOMETER or YOU’RE a FAKE.”

When you SHOWED UP claiming – YOU’RE READY to RUMBLE for your church.

You heard the WORD thermometer and FOLDED like ALL thermodynamic FAKES.

DavidAppell

I understand the greenhouse effect just fine. But I’ve learned not to carry on conversations with rude people who can’t write decent English sentences.

Allen Eltor

You learned what happens when someone calls your FAKE science to your face and says ”EXPLAIN to us all how a SUN WARMED ROCK

getting LESS ENERGY to then DISTRIBUTE and EMIT what’s LEFT through a LARGER COLDER MASS is the DEFINITION of COOLING

but in your CHURCH it’s a MAGICAL HEATER in the sky.

DavidAppell

As usual, I find your sentences utterly incomprehensible.

Allen Eltor

As usual, you don’t have the manhood and intellectual integrity to talk about your magic heater in the sky.

The frigid refrigerated gas bath that blocked light to a sun warm rock and distributed the remaining energy through a larger colder mass, and that the people down at Pot is Like Heroin told you,

is a magic heater.

DavidAppell

“refrigerated gas?” What instrument is refrigerating this gas, and where is it plugged it?

Allen Eltor

Another Wrong answer, from the terminally stupid.

DavidAppell

Until you stop with the all caps shit, your comments will be ignored simply because they appear juvenile.

Allen Eltor

Whine and squirm and cry like a raped nun until they shut your internet off. Let us all know if that changes the laws of thermodynamics so

LESS LIGHT
spread through and emitted from a GREATER, COLDER MASS,

becomes magically a HEATER instead of a FRIGID LIGHT BLOCKING BATH.

LoL.

We’ll all wait.

DavidAppell

Same response, Allen — learn how to write in English, and I will entertain your questions. Until then…..

Allen Eltor

Nobody has any respect for a magic gasser without the spine to speak up for his church.

DavidAppell

Actually, writing odious terms like “raped nun” means you will never get another response from me. Yours’ is a disgusting choice of language.

Blocked. Good bye.

Allen Eltor

LoL what a loser.

Allen Eltor

You’ve got the intellectual displacement of a children’s teacup. You need to show that your church’s doctrines are even reality based. Until you do, you’re just another magic gas scammer scurrying from post to post, running from the reality that never stops catching up to you.

Allen Eltor

You learned to hide, when somebody tells you, to analyze a thermometer, magic gas quack. Nobody suspends an insulating reflector between an object and it’s heat source, then distributes and emits the reduced energy through a larger, colder mass, and makes heating.

The definition of that is COOLING. LoL

how long have you been scurrying around the internet announcing a REFRIGERATED BATH is a magic heater in the sky. LoL. !

DavidAppell

Your understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is deficient.

Allen Eltor

Obviously if you had anything to contribute besides ”A FREEZING REFRIGERATED BATH blocking LIGHT to a ROCK is a MAGIC HEATER! you’d have put it up long ago.

DavidAppell

There are no magic heaters. There is a reduction in the rate of cooling, which is the same as warming.

Allen Eltor

Wrong answer, stupid.

DavidAppell

Do you think a body at any temperature does not radiate energy?

Allen Eltor

”LooK a Magic Gasser Deflecting yet again !”

Allen Eltor

We’ve all waited here for WEEKS as you barked you understand about the ”giant magic heater in the sky.”

Yet you’re running around squeaking like a mouse running from a broom.

Typical public school zombies sent out from the church of Pot is Heroin to discuss the

Magic Heater in The Sky.

DavidAppell

Whenever I see claims like this, I immediately think the WRITER would alter his finding so satisfy what he thinks politicians want, so he assumes everyone is just as dishonest.

That’s not my experience. Scientists are the most scrupilious people I have ever encountered.

Ali_Bertarian

Scientists are the most scrupilious people I have ever encountered.

Then you need to check out retractionwatch.org. Scrupulousness takes a back seat to anyone’s paycheck, including that of scientists.

—————

Every hear of Climategate?

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

UN IPCC chair Pachauri, 2013: “If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.”

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming and CO2 is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, Clinton-Gore administration

In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC’s TAR, the same UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, a contributor to the first four IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007:

“At an IPCC Lead Authors’ meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient. After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: ‘We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol.'”http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

the MBH (Mann Bradley Hughes) camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only “half-empty”; it is demonstrably “broken”.

I just don’t want to get into an open critique of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively understand what is going on.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

In 2006, University of Oklahoma geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled “an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change” who told him that “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” In June of this year, Deming identified the year of that email as 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month’s Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report.

Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck – which Prof. Deming didn’t deny in an email response — who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author. So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” was featured prominently in the subsequent 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political attention.

This email from Mr. Kenneth Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming.”

On the Importance of the Free-flow of Information to Science

Email from Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, to Michael Mann:
“Mike,Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

Email from Phil Jones:

“Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McIntyre and McKitrick, who have requested data through FOIA] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.”

Professor Jones, to Professor Mann and Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona and Raymond S. “Ray” Bradley at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst:

“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

Professor Jones tells Professor Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Professor Jones to another academic: “I did get an e-mail from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting e-mails” and “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.”

On How Important Non-emotional Objectivity is to the Scientific Process

Phil Jones: “…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

Or this email from Dr. Andrew Manning to Dr. Phil Jones that highlights the climate research industry that has grown up around cap and trade:

“Hi Phil, is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases”

Tim Osborn, professor at the Climate Research Unit, discusses in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be seen in the results.

Professor Mann sent Professor Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he is sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming.

On How Important the Integrity of the Peer Review Process Is To Scientific Research

Professor Mann wrote: “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

DavidAppell

I know all about Climategate. It proved nothing. Science is about evidence, and the evidence for AGW is overwhelming, whether you can understand it or not.

Ali_Bertarian

I know all about Climategate. It proved nothing. Science is about evidence, and the evidence for AGW is overwhelming

No, science is about evidence, and the real, live, infallible humans that are supposed to practice the scientific method.

DavidAppell

“No, science is about evidence”

That’s exactly what I wrote, Einstein.

Ali_Bertarian

“No, science is about evidence”

That’s exactly what I wrote, Einstein.

Here, let’s make what I wrote bigger, since this is now the 3rd time in one day that you don’t seem to understand how to read:

No, science is about evidence, and the real, live, fallible humans that are supposed to practice the scientific method.

DavidAppell

Yes, science is about evidence. How many more times do you want me to type it?

Daniel F. Melton

He (davidappell) suffers from a perceptual dissonance that renders him incapable of realizing he’s been duped into believing in global warming.
Or he’s being paid to disrupt legitimate conversations on the internet forums.

Allen Eltor

The EVIDENCE IS that PHIL JONES ADMITTED IT HASN’T WARMED since 1 9 9 8 and THE RAW DATA POSTED ONLINE REFLECTS THAT AS WELL.

The EVIDENCE is that PHIL JONES was FIRED by the MET OFFICE for NOT ADMITTING it stopped WARMING in ’98.

The EVIDENCE IS that TWO YEARS AFTER they FIRED him – after he ADMITTED it stopped warming in 1 9 9 8 so he didn’t go to JAIL

The Met Office, LARGEST meteorological group on earth, ANNOUNCED IT STOPPED WARMING in 1 9 9 8 AND THAT in FACT there’s BEEN some COOLING.

And the PROOF of this is that it’s HISTORICALLY RECORDED as HOW it all happened.

You’re a hick who joined a church where quack tard fake science is THE MAIN DRAW.

Evidence is evidence and the RAW DATA they ALL REFER to is REGARDED as the GOLD STANDARD for global temp.

Evidence is that you’re too stupid to talk about your church except in the sense of describing how much you love it and doing your best to conceal your church leaders got busted perpetrating fraud for 18 years.

It’s your church hick, it’s your problem. YOU explain it.

LoL. Magic Gas believing hicks where do you go to school the public education system?

O h – yeah the same place they started telling you the sky’s a magic heater when you’re in kindergarten.
BWAH HaH hah hah hah

THAT’S why you BELIEVE in it, you were EDUCATED in it !!! LoLoLoLoL ! Sucks to be you but somebody’s gotta be the low information quack tard everybody point at and laughs at.

yeah MY BAD on that one Ali sorry. I was actually speaking to the WACKO who THINKS the SKY HAS a HEATER in it.

He has staggered around this thread for WEEKS unable to discuss the thermodynamics of his hillbilly religion, trying to gather some arch sense of authority for confessing government employees convinced him a
FRIGID
TURBULENT
SELF REFRIGERATING BATH
BLOCKIN 20% INCOMING ENERGY to a SPHERE
is
MAGICALLY a HEATER
because he went to public school.

All you have to do is tell the hick to analyze more and less light falling on a thermometer and suddenly a
FRIGID
TURBULENT
SELF REFRIGERATING BATH

has him pointing ”LOOK! a BUTTERF- and he’s gone to try to figure out what kind of insult he can come up with

TO COVER BEING CAUGHT UNABLE to ANALYZE how MORE or LESS LIGHT hits a THERMOMETER.

Allen Eltor

I replied but it doesn’t seem to be up sorry about that Ali I meant to speak to what’s his name, the magic gasser there.. my bad man.

Like when that hick MIchael Mann created that pathetic hockey stick generator?

When the idiots who invented your church said the core of the magic heater is the green house gas COOLANTS?

When the people who claim to believe your church’s story have been modeling and modeling 35 years and still can’t predict which way a thermometer goes even if we give them/you the answers ahead of time?

You’re an incompetent quack who is simply drawn to falsehood and it doesn’t matter where you find it.

Pot is like Heroin, atmospheric coolants are a magical heater – you’ve got the intellectual credibility to show up waving those around – barking fake science from the ORIGINAL fake science people, the Federal Government.

Matter of fact it was a Democrat Oil man who decided he was going to spread fake science and destroy a national commodity in energy,

and it was a Democrat Oil man who told FDR he wanted cannabis illegal so he could sell his OIL RELATED products, NYLON and POLYPROPYLENE. Cannabis was one of the nations LARGEST commodity industries.

Democrat oil men wiped that shit out like they were criminals. The MADE the hemp farmers, CRIMINALS.

75 years of FAKE science,
75 years of FAKE evidence,
75 years of THE SCIENCE is settled,

and now you’re in here running around like you think the sky is a magical heater, is – a real thing.

Here’s the scoop, quack tard: the green house gases kick 20% available energy to space.
If diffraction cooling is AMPLIFIED that means putting more green house gas COOLANTS into the atmosphere

until 21% energy is kicked out to space. THE FACT YOUR CHURCH CAN’T DISCUSS that IS YOUR PROBLEM.

That’s how it is and it has wound up with you here barking about a magical heater made from COOLANT.

DavidAppell

The hockey stick has been replicated and reproduced many times now. It is accepted science.

Phil Jones, data scammer in chief later busted, thrown out of his job and nearly jailed for what he refused to tell the scientific community:
”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I daid the world cooled since 1998.
OK IT HAS but it ISN’T but SEVEN YEARS of DATA (EVERY year between ’98 and 05 when he said it)
AND IT ISN’T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.”

Three months after JONES trying to ESCAPE JAIL CONFESSED to the BBC whose REPORTER he tried to RUIN for REPORTING he KNEW
WARMING STOPPED in ;98

FEB 2010 BBC interview: Phil Jones:

BBC: isn’t it TRUE there has been NO WARMING SINCE 1998 and that there has in fact been some slight cooling?

JONES: ***YES. I have DONE the CALCULATIONS and FIND THERE HAS BEEN NO COOLING SINCE 1 9 9 8 and that there has been a small amount of statistically insignificant cooling.”

END of YOU lying BULLSHOOT.

DavidAppell

You can’t remain civil here. So you don’t deserve a response.

Allen Eltor

This is mainly about letting people watch you be slapped all over the thread. We all knew you don’t have anything to defend yourself.

VooDude

DA, did you draw that? No citation, no URL, nothing to indicate a source.

Gavin ”It’s almost like it’s there if you look long enough” regarding the troposphere never heating up.

”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8. OK IT HAS.”

”BBC: ISN’T it TRUE there’s been no warming since 1 9 9 5 and that in fact since 2 0 0 2 there’s been some slight cooling? ”

Busted world’s #1 climatologist Phil Jones: YES. I did the math and there has been no warming since 1995. I also calculated the trend since 2002 and although not statistically robust, there is slight COOLING. ” (Jones was on tranquilizers and mis-spoke saying 1995. His shoddy work was so bad it had to be re-done and corrected to 1 9 9 8)

Met Office after demoting Jones for NOT REVEALING it STOPPED WARMING in 1 9 9 8, in 2013 issued the press release: The Recent Pause In Warming where they WROTE THREE PAPERS ADDRESSING ”THE PAUSE IN WARMING THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS” (2013 to 1998)

Schmidt’s drawing simply means the temperature hasn’t changed. End of story. All the faked warming is still – FAKED WARMING. *GAVIN SCHMIDT LIES to YOU DAILY*

DavidAppell

Allen, you still do not seem to understand. Your comment about “raping nuns” was so extremely odious that nothing else you can say will overcome it, until you apologize and mean it.

Allen Eltor

Stop trying to act like some school teaching Nun. Imperious when you think you’ve got kids scared, pouting like you’re afraid you’ll be made to kneel and say ablutions whenever you’re corrected.

Allen Eltor

That chart’s not right. The people who publish the adjusted data for those numbers got caught perpetrating fraud wherein the world’s #1 climatologist had to admit

to the BBC in their 2010 interview of Phil Jones,

that in fact it stopped warming in 1 9 9 5. (later adjusted to ’98, he was on sedatives thinking he could be fired, even jailed over his fraud) and that there was in fact some slight COOLING since 2002.

I see those records have not been gone back over and corrected so that means that James Hansen’s hand picked successor in the Climate Gate scam is still using the fake data.

If it hasn’t been gone back and adjusted since he confessed then it’s fake data. End of story.

Due in part. A noise level part, and the warming we have experienced has been quite good. Lowest severe weather in a half century. Lowest deaths due to said weather in centuries. You just need a good banging to get you out of our self hating obsession.

Allen Eltor

You’re a hick who can’t step through what happens when more and less light falls on a thermometer.

DavidAppell

“Since the invention of thermometers, in 1880, the global temperatures have increased by 0.8 degree C with half of that increase occurring before 1950 when man made CO2 wasn’t a problem.”

Wrong. Over 90% of the warming has come since 1960. 75% has come since 1975.

“The first rule of propaganda is: Never tell a lie.” Being found demonstrably false in anything you say negates everything you say.”
~William Donovan (head of the OSS during WWII)

Allen Eltor

You’re a hick. DATA SCAMMER in CHARGE Phil Jones in 2005 said ”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8. OK IT HAS but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically signficant.”
WHAT DATA SET REFLECTED THAT TEMPERATURE in 2005?

THIS ISN’T COMPLICATED.

The RAW DATA placed unadjusted online by LAW to stop: ADJUSTMENT FRAUDS like your church leaders.

Then in 2009 : JONES and TRENBERTH and M A N N and SCHMIDT and HANSEN’s NAMES all on an EMAIL from JONES: A BBC reporter said it stopped warming in 1 9 9 8. Maybe we should do to him what we did to the other one.”
MANN: YOU issue a press release from YOUR meterorlogical organization
MANN: and then YOU issue a press release but DON’T make it look like it’s COORDINATED.
MANN: and then YOU issue a press release from YOUR organization making sure it DOESN’T look like we’re doing this together.
TRENBERTH MELTING down, crying about how it hasn’t warmed, and he is completely HUMILIATED as a professional.

In that conversation not ONE word – from ANYBODY – about – ”say WHAT about ’98? Why ’98?”
BECAUSE
THEY ALL KNOW the TEMPERATURE of the WORLD is that DEPICTED by the RAW DATA POSTED ONLINE.

Then 2010: in order to not go to jail JONES HAS AGREED to FESS UP: FEB 2010 BBC interview: phil jones –

BBC: Isn’t it TRUE there has BEEN NO WARMING since 1998 and that there in FACT has been SLIGHT COOLING?

JONES: YES. I calculated the temperature and there has been NO WARMING since 1 9 9 8 and there has been in fact SLIGHT cooling.

THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED
it’s the SIMPLEST PHASE of MATTER.

FAST FORWARD: Met Office FIRED JONES over HIDING there had been no WARMING since 98.

2013 The WORLD data COLLECTION office the Met Office which FIRED Jones for NOT TELLING:

”There has been NO WARMING since 1998 AND THERE HAS IN FACT been a SLIGHT but not statistically significant COOLING.”

TWO YEARS after they FIRED JONES for NOT CONFESSING there’s BEEN NO WARMING since ’98

The WORLD DATA COLLECTION OFFICE ADMITTED: THERE’S been no WARMING since 1 9 9 8.

Jones in 2005.
Jones/Mann/Trenberth/Schmidt/Hansen in 2009
ALL getting the same EMAIL
CRYING about someone finding out: there’s been no warming since ’98.
NOT A SOUL says a SINGLE WORD about ”why ’98”

Jones in 2010: I HAVE BEEN FAKING ALL THIS DATA for TWELVE YEARS. Not a WORD of these temps is true. It’s all FAKE. It stopped WARMING in 1 9 9 8.

Met Office: 2013: after FIRING JONES for NOT REVEALING it STOPPED WARMING in 1 9 9 8
MET OFFICE two YEARS LATER ISSUES PRESS RELEASE: ”THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING SINCE the BEGINNING of 1 9 9 8. (Actually I think THEY said JANUARY 97).

NO WARMING for 18 YEARS. Did they go back and CORRECT those RECORDS we have all seen CLEARLY STATED as recording it STOPPED WARMING in 98/97?

No? THEN ALL THAT DATA is FAKE. It’s FAKE like your story of the MAGIC HEATER i the sky made of COOLANTS

It’s FAKE.

Which goes DIRECTLY to YOUR lack of any reasonable credibility if you claim you never heard of all that.

So YOU’RE in here trying to bark about magic gas and FAKED DATA as CONFESSED by the MAN who FAKED it and ADMITTED by the PEOPLE who FIRED him for NOT ADMITTING it was FAKED.

You’ve got the intellectual bona fides of a crack head. NOTHING you say turns out to be associated with reality or any kind of story you can defend about a THERMOMETER and the FRIGID GAS BATH scrubbing/refrigerating HEAT from it.

DavidAppell

Jones was, of course, right – seven years of data cannot determine a statistically significant trend.

Allen Eltor

That kind of incompetency in comprehension is what has you on the internet about the green house gas coolants being a magical heater.

Why do you need to resort to character assassination if you are so sure of your ahem….”science”? You are no different to the rest of the charlatans out there because for all your cheap jibes you have NO credible way to separate the effects of man from nature which is what this is all “supposed” to be about. Look at the billions of dollars behind the muppet show which Gore et al get richer and richer by the day from …. I see the Emperor is wearing a fine set of clothes this year…You may be a sheep and rely on referred wisdom … but do not quote models and selectively applied gradients and then condemn anyone who looks at the data. You are no better then the religious persecutors of history. PS Buy an extra thick duvet because you will need it for your yurt when the next high pressure cold snap settles and the highly subsidized windmills you embrace stop turning.

See how you know you can’t win with facts, truth, logic or science so you have to go with ad hominem instead? How is anything in your above comment in any way an honest attempt to have a dialog or communicate a logical, sensible argument?

Check the “official” temperature data from NCDC. Let’s just look at 2014.

Here we have the actual data, which has a lot of gray areas, because that is missing data:

Here we have the “data” that NOAA submits to the gullible press and gullible alarmists, and tells us that it is actual temperature data:

So how do they get the “data?” They estimate it.

Robert

Thanks for the use of quotemarks!

NonFool

Some deluded moron in the comments section pull one chart out of his ass and that trumps Lord Monckton?
THAT is crap.

monckton

“The latest ‘corrected’ analysis”? “Corrected”? The previous analysis didn’t show any global warming for a decade and a half, so they changed the data to get the warming they wanted. But it didn’t work, because the satellites show there’s been no warming for 18 years 9 months. And surface warming should be happening more slowly even than the lower troposphere, which the satellites measure.

So don’t just believe the politicized handouts from rent-seeking government organizations. Think. Check. Belief has no place in science.

Mobius Loop

So here is the thing. One of the satellite data sets DID show warming until Spencer changed it ……… and then it didn’t.

demac

This graph is from NOAA after they have adjusted the base temperature data (which didn’t show an increase.) It has been shown to be a fraud.

DavidAppell

Are you aware the satellite readings also need copious adjustments?

Ali_Bertarian

Are you aware the satellite readings also need copious adjustments?

Are you aware that the only reason that the earth-based temp data now results in warming for the last 18 years, instead of matching the satellite and balloon data which show no warming, is due solely to those adjustments?

Do you really want to make compulsory, massive changes in everyone’s lives based on claims that do not result from a set of data, unless those data are modified? What was wrong with the original data, since the claim from those “scientists” deriving the data is that the science was settled?

DavidAppell

And satellite data only shows a flat trend due solely to adjusting past temperatures.

DavidAppell

And the satellite data only show no recent warming BECAUSE OF ADUSTMENTS.

Ali_Bertarian

Nope. That satellite data never showed any warming in that period. Until the Karl study the Earth-based data didn’t either.

Well, … it isn’t. The aggregate data presented by NOAA, as directed by NOAA’s Commander In Chief (would you expect dissension, in the ranks?) … is an aggregate ‘warming’. Since the aggregate COOLING is below the depth capability of the ARGO probes, and most XBT probes, and it isn’t being measured, perhaps the measured ‘warming’ would be countered by the unmeasured COOLING?

Wunsch and Heimbach 2014, 293 ”At all depths, but particularly in the upper ocean, regions of warming are at least partially compensated in the global integrals by extended regions of cooling (especially the tropical Pacific ￼… and North Atlantic subtropical gyre). These patterns emphasize the problem of having adequate spatial sampling to generate mean values consistent with the accuracies [claimed] in Table 1.”

Wunsch and Heimbach 2014 points out that “the warming” 160 ”… is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012).”.

W&H ’14 poses the question of accuracies and precisions … and signal-to-noise…

62 ”An important question, pursued elsewhere, is whether available observations alone are capable of determining mean ocean temperatures, and the related heat content changes with time, to accuracies and precisions useful at these levels?”

73 ”By some standards … an impressive amount of data does exist: an evaluation of their [in]adequacy can only be made in the context of the signal-to-noise structure…”

Hadfield 2007: ””The noise is less than 0.5°C in the eastern basin and below 1000 m in the western basin.… there are two main regions centered at 500 m in the western basin where the noise exceeds 2°C.”

Hadfield ’07: “…The root-mean-square (RMS) difference in the Argo-based temperature field relative to the section measurements is about 0.6°C. The RMS difference is smaller, less than 0.4°C, in the eastern basin and larger, up to 2.0°C, toward the western boundary.”

Hmmm, what is in the western boundary? Oh, the Gulf Stream, the Florida current… Narrow, shallow bands of hot water. So, manually-placed XBT probes, compared to freely-drifting ARGO probes, and the Root-Mean-Square error can be two orders of magnitude larger than the expected signal? Sounds like a problem.

Hadfield again: “However, the expected sampling error increases to more than 50 W/m^2 in the Gulf Stream region and north of 40°N, limiting the use of Argo in these areas.”

Cunningham 2010: ”The uncertainty derives mainly from the fact that XBT observations are made only in the upper kilometre of the ocean, with an additional significant uncertainty due to the high-frequency variability of the flows at the boundaries. … another important source of error is the lack of observations of the barotropic component of the flow, particularly west of 47°W. This is important because, … the North Atlantic Deep Water flow … whose magnitude and variability is practically unknown.”

”…the thermohaline circulation is not unambiguously quantified by these observations, and interpreting the variability in the thermohaline circulation from them is complicated by their partial nature.”

”…the northward upper branch of the AMOC, and the southward return flow between 2000 and 3000 m depth.”

which finds a heat content change of only +0.05 W/m2 for the ocean below 3000 meters. Compare that to +0.30 W/m2 for the 0-700 m region for the last 10 years, and +0.64 W/m2 for the 0-2000 m region for the last 10 years.

DavidAppell

Wunsch and Heimbach wrote:
“In the global average, changes in heat content below 2000 m are roughly 10% of those inferred for the upper ocean over the 20-yr period.”

That’s WARMING.

The ocean heat change of the 0-700 m region of the ocean over the last 20 years is +0.33 W/m2.

Leonard Schopenhouer

CB. Fisting is probably not the best career choice you could have made.

Name-calling. The final refuge of those who have no real rebuttal. And it’s childish, too.

PhD

You really need to see a psychiatrist CB. You are spending way too much time making nonsensical statements on line.
You are at over 18,600 comments. I think you are manic and over the top in these ridiculous pompous statements.
You need help NOW

Rosario Barahona

‎

.❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the lap-top❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
3gai……..
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalWorldEmploymentVacanciesReportExpo/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

Icarus62

As we all know by now, global warming has accelerated in the last few years, not slowed down –

“We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”

Unfortunately for the accident-prone Icarus62, the graph he shows takes insufficient account of the best ocean-temperature dataset we have, which is the network of 3600+ ARGO bathythermograph buoys, each of which takes three temperature and salinity profiles each month. During the entire 11-year record, the ocean’s surface layers are shown as not warming at all, while the layers beneath are warming a little. Taking the average across the entire 1.25-mile-deep temperature profile, the warming rate over the past 11 years in the ocean is equivalent to a not particularly terrifying 1 degree of warming every 430 years. The reason, as any schoolboy knows, is that the ocean is a very substantial heat-sink three orders of magnitude denser than the atmosphere, which accordingly has very little power to warm it at all rapidly.

Icarus62

“…the ocean is a very substantial heat-sink three orders of magnitude denser than the atmosphere…”

Indeed, and your response shows precisely why the “No Global Warming for 18 Years!” meme is such a ridiculous charade.

monckton

There has been no warming of the lower troposphere, at all, for 18 years 9 months (RSS), or 18 years 6 months (UAH). There has been no statistically-significant warming on any of the datasets for at least 14 years, and up to 22 years on some of them. There has been no warming of the upper strata of the ocean during the entire near-12-year ARGO bathythermograph record. The top mile and a quarter of the ocean shows warming coming not from above, as the IPCC predicts, but from below – and even then only at a rate which, averaged over all the strata that are measured, amounts to a mere 1 degree of warming every 430 years.

It is childish and anti-scientific to ignore these observed realities, which show the ever-widening gulf between the extremist predictions of the IPCC in 1990 and the far less exciting, and entirely unalarming, reality that has been observed in the quarter-century since then.

Icarus62

“There has been no warming of the lower troposphere, at all, for 18 years 9 months…”

The fact that you know perfectly well that the oceans are by far the largest heat sink in the climate system (as you just admitted), and that the oceans are warming relentlessly, tells us all we need to know about the integrity of your claims.

Your sneaky change from “no global warming at all” to “no warming of the lower troposphere” only reinforces the point that you’ve been caught out in a lie, and are now desperately back-pedaling.

You should be ashamed of yourself for such transparent attempts to deceive.

monckton

Don’t be childish. You take money from a climate-Communist advocacy group to disrupt these threads with your hate-speech. You were paid $122,000 last year alone to do this. You are not earning your keep unless you at least make some attempt to address serious scientific points seriously. The graph of ocean heat content that you show here, with the implicit allegation that the head posting overlooks the oceans, is actually reproduced in the head posting itself. You were so anxious to get your monthly check from the environmentalist-socialist activist group that you could not be bothered even to read the head posting you presumed to attack, with your entirely false allegations of deception on my part.

The increase in ocean heat content is actually determined from the increase in ocean temperature, which is so small that it is an embarrassment to the environmentalist extremists. During the 11 years of the ARGO bathythermograph record (before 2004, ocean heat content is little better than guesswork), the rate of ocean warming has been equivalent to 1 Celsius degree every 430 years.

It is precisely because the oceans are a formidable heat-sink that we do not need to worry about rapid global warming of the atmosphere. The heat merely accumulates in the oceans. Now, 260 ZJ since 1970 seems a lot: but it is tiny in comparison to the vast heat capacity of the oceans. Interestingly, the ARGO temperature profiles show that the surface layers of the oceans are not warming at all, though that is where the warming would be occurring if the atmosphere was warming (which, as the satellite datasets show, it is not). The warming is coming from below, inferentially from a no doubt transient naturally occurring increase in the activity of the 3.5 million subsea volcanoes ranged chiefly along the mid-ocean tectonic divergence boundaries, through which unmonitored magmatic intrusions directly heat the abyssal strata (which, however, have so large a heat capacity that their mean temperature is 3-4 Celsius degrees).

The oceans, then, are no help to the climate extremists. They are one of the many important reasons why the models have exaggerated so relentlessly, leading to equally relentless exaggerations of predicted warming by the IPCC.

Now, my suggestion is that you go back to your Communist paymasters and tell them that wasting everyone’s time bullying those who might otherwise express support for the questioners’ position on the climate issue is not a productive use of their money or your time. The science is implacably against your lies, deceptions, falsehoods, and frauds. You gain financially by disrupting this and many other threads, and you cower behind anonymity in the hope that no one will detect you. However, the public authorities in many countries are now looking at the extremists’ activities, funding, and fraudulent behavior. Yours is just one of a dozen aliases whose true identities are now known to the authorities. It is only a matter of time before you find yourselves in jail. In future, stick to the truth, and don’t bother wasting any more time here.

Icarus62

You really ought to stop now. You’re just embarrassing yourself even further.

monckton

Is that the best a highly-paid climate-Communist troll can think up? Why not admit who you are? Then you might have some credibility. As it is, with every successive and vicious intervention, you reveal the hatred of the truth that your shoddy creed evinces, the willingness to kill millions via denying them the affordable, reliable, clean fossil-fuelled electricity they need, and a complete ignorance of climatological physics.

Meanwhile, all levels of the troposphere and all levels of the ocean fail to warm at the rates predicted by the climate Communist profiteers of doom. The discrepancy between wildly-exaggerated prediction and unexciting reality will continue ineluctably to widen. And no amount of paid trolling will alter those facts.

Anaussieinswitzerland

I’m not communist and I’m certainly not paid to be here, but I can see that every single national scientific institute regards your opinions as just so much lunatic voodoo science.
Your own posts reveal the depths to which you are prepared to sink in order to sling mud at and attempt to intimidate anybody who takes the trouble to point out your schoolboy scientific errors and obvious attempts to misinform and mislead.
You really are a very, very nasty piece of work.

monckton

It’s good to find someone from the believers’ side of this debate who is not profiteering by being paid to disrupt these threads. You are, however, unbecomingly anonmyous. Why not admit who you are? To make personal attacks from behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity is yellow. I do not intimidate anyone. I am free to call out the anonymous, paid, climate-Communist trolls for what they are. If they want to say who they are, we can then have a sensible conversation about the climate.

I guess you are an environmentalist-Socialist: for it is only that totalitarian group that clings foolishly to the belief, demolished by Aristotle in his Sophistical Refutations 2350 years ago and confirmed by Thales of Miletus, Abu Ali Ibn al-Haytham, Newton, Einstein and Popper, to name but a few, that science is done by a supposed “consensus” of imagined “experts”. Anyone with a sufficient grounding in elementary formal logic will at once recognize your argument from a “consensus” of “experts” as an unholy conflation of two of Aristotle’s fundamental and now well shop-worn fallacies of logic: the fallacy of argument from mere headcount and the fallacy of argument from the supposed qualifications of imagined experts. Logically speaking, it does not necessarily follow that because some (by no means all) scientific advocacy groups say the world is warming at the predicted rate they are right because they are many or they are right because they are eminent.

You have provided no evidence that any of these scientific advocacy groups has stated that the rate at which the world has been warming since 1990 is greater than the rate then predicted by the IPCC. Hint: the truth, on all datasets, is that the rate of warming since 1990 is below the least prediction then made by the IPCC. It would, therefore, be remarkably silly of any scientific advocacy group, however eminent or official-looking, to say any such thing. And I am not aware that any has done so. If so, then let us have a look at the evidence of what they are saying; and then let us compare it with the evidence of the principal satellite datasets and the principal terrestrial-tamperature datasets and the principal ocean dataset.

For science is a process not of belief in the wisdom of experts, however many you line up, but of checking the theory against the data. The head posting makes the simple point, with what any rational mind would accept was a considerable body of evidence, that the data – thus far, at any rate – do not reflect the extreme predictions first made by the IPCC a quarter of a century ago.

No amount of invective on your part, or on the part of any troll with hate rather than learning in his heart, will alter the ineluctable numbers. For, in order to get the scare going, the IPCC had to make lurid predictions. Having made those predictions, it must not now act surprised if enquirers such as I am decide to verify the extent to which those predictions are reflected in observed reality. It has long been evident (I have been producing these graphs since 2008) that the IPCC’s predictions were flat wrong. They were grossly exaggerated. Indeed, as one of the IPCC’s expert reviewers I played my part in persuading it that it must revise its predictions sharply downward. It was compelled to act on this recommendation, at least with respect to the medium-term fraction of the prediction curve. However, it continues to cling – with increasing and desperate implausibility – to its exaggerated longer-term predictions. And that is unwise: for it is evidence of fraudulent intent on the part of the lead authors.

They know perfectly well – for reasons I shall not go into here, but you can watch my interventions in Paris and Essen next month for details – that the amount of global warming to be expected this century, on the RCP 6.0 “business-almost-as-usual” scenario, will not exceed 0.5 Celsius degrees. Not exactly a problem, is it? Yet they have knowingly published predictions about which we can demonstrate two things: first, they know the predictions to be exaggerated, and know it clearly: and secondly, that they intend to persist in those predictions, false though they obviously be, till they are prosecuted. And that is the fate that now awaits them. The Swiss bureau de l’escroquerie (the IPCC being headquartered in Switzerland) has had its attention drawn to the fraudulent activities within the IPCC. So have several national investigating authorities. In my assessment, it is only a matter of time before one of two things happens: the IPCC backs off from its extremist predictions, or those who have put their names to those wild exaggerations as lead authors, knowing the exaggerations to be false, will go to jail.

The raw-material prices of coal, oil, and gas have all fallen over the past decade: yet energy bills are thrice what they were ten years ago. That is causing real hardship, particularly among the poor. One close to me was found in a recent cold winter, collapsed on the floor of her unheated house (the indoor temperature was below freezing), because she could no longer afford to keep the heating on. The sole reason: the price hikes to subsidize useless windmills and solar panels, which cause environmental devastation at vast cost, and actually add in net terms to the quantity of CO2 emitted (not that that is a problem).

So, like it or not – and you evidently don’t – in the end the truth cannot be concealed. The predictions were exaggerated, and the extent of the exaggeration becomes greater and more visible by the day. Perpetrating logical fallacies will not alter the facts: it will merely make you appear feeble-minded.

As for your allegation that I have made unspecified “schoolboy scientific errors”, why not read through the head posting and let me know what is wrong with it? I am always open to being corrected if I have made a mistake. But I have gone to more than usual lengths to verify the accuracy of the graphs, and you can determine the least-squares trends on the various datasets for yourself if you have reason to believe that they do not show what I say they show. But mere yah-boo won’t hack it here. Yah-boo is the grunt of the yahoo. Here we talk science and data, not climate-Communist politics.

Anaussieinswitzerland

TL:DR

monckton

Totally Logical: Definitely Right. How very kind of Aussieinswitzerland to accept the argument I set forth above.

Anaussieinswitzerland

I think what you are failing to grasp is the fact that nobody cares what you think.

You are wrong, probably deliberately so, on the science and your motives for propagating this idiocy are murky to say the least.

The facts have left you behind.

monckton

Of course no scientist cares what I think. No scientist cares what anyone thinks, on a scientific question. What true scientists care about are the facts and the data. One takes it that Anaussieinswitzerland is entirely unable to find anything actually and materially wrong with the facts and data presented in the head posting, and resorts to mere yah-boo as a substitute for rational thought followed by reasoned discussion. And that, in the end, is why the climate Communists are as doomed to failure as their totalitarian predecessors in the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany and in the Communist Parties that killed so many hundreds of millions between them in Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Hate-speech from anonymous trolls may well succeed in its intention of frightening off anyone who might dare to challenge the climate-Communist Party Line: but, because the Party Line began with predictions scary enough to alarm scientifically-illiterate governments, and because those predictions have now been proven by real-world measurement to have been wild exaggerations, regardless of what I think the discrepancy between wild prediction and unexciting reality will continue ineluctably to widen until all will be able to see that the climate Communists were as wrong about this as totalitarians everywhere are wrong about everything.

Meanwhile, I am one of a growing army of freedom, and we shall continue to speak the truth quietly, authorititively, whether the climate-Communists like it or not. The truth is the truth, and They cannot indefinitely conceal the extent to which Their predictions have failed and failed and failed again.

Anaussieinswitzerland

“Of course no scientist cares what I think”

I didn’t say scientist, I said nobody.
However, I’m sure there are a few scientists who, while not exactly caring, read your pieces avidly.
After all, everybody needs a good laugh from time to time.

“One takes it that Anaussieinswitzerland is entirely unable to find anything actually and materially wrong with the facts and data presented in the head posting”

It’s been done so many times before by people far better qualified than me that repetition is redundant.

“And that, in the end, is why the climate Communists are as doomed to failure as their totalitarian predecessors in the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany”

Classic Godwin.

As for the rest of your post, more of your usual drivel and really not worth the time to read let alone respond to.

monckton

Don’t be childish. Monckton’s Law states that Fascists, when caught out as the Fascists they are, snivel about “Godwin’s law”. The use of the term “Godwin’s Law” by these people is accordingly an admission that they are Fascists but do not wish to be called out as such.

It remains the case that “Aussieinswitzerland” has been unable to produce a single scientific point in challenge to the head posting, or to my replies to him here, inferentially because he knows I’m right but can’t admit it.

jmac

Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS. 🙂

monckton

And yet the rate of global warming since 1990, on all datasets, is considerably below even the least prediction made by the IPCC that year. That is a fact, and no amount of paid climate-Communist trolling will alter that fact.

jmac

You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

But I just think you are the very worst of mankind, a sociopath willing to do anything for money.

Robert

And just his word for ‘evidence’…..

jmac

Monckton has been living inside the teanut wingnut bubble, where no one questions a good “Commie/Nazi” story. He’s baffled by the idea that people would actually not take his bullshit at face value.

What is funny is that he calls his opponents “climate-Communists” but then has the audacity to publish in a journal in a Communist country.

If everybody had to drink each time Monckton said the word Communist we would all be wasted. I mean how can you take anyone seriously that throws that term out so liberally. He must think it some sort of code word for the teanut wingnuts.

jmac

After Monckton and his allies went about crowing that his article in an APS newsletter was “peer-reviewed,” the APS started appending notices on all its newsletter articles stating they are not peer-reviewed. Monckton claimed it was all a Communist plot. Marxist, to be precise.

monckton

But when have I ever attempted to “disprove man-made climate change”? We exist; therefore, to some degree or another, we affect our environment, as does every critter on Earth. The question is not whether man-made climate change is possible, for elementary and well-established theory – established not by “consensus” but by experiment – indicates that enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will be likely, all other things being equal, to cause some warming. The $64,000 question is not whether, but how much. And the answer, so far at any rate, is “very little”.

And no one pays me to compile my monthly updates on global temperature. I do it because I’m interested enough to download the data off the satellites or the servers and do the math and publish the results for all who are interested. These monthly graphs have proven to be very influential in bringing the world to realize that the predictions and the reality have turned out very different from one another. That is the first step toward more realistic and less exaggerated predictions. The IPCC, on my advice as one of its expert reviewers, has begun to revise its predictions downward. So have the modellers. On my understanding of the underlying climatological physics, they have quite a long way further down to go before their predictions become realistic. Even on their own “mainstream” methods and data, one would not expect to see more than 0.5 K global warming this century. And what on earth is “sociopathic” about reporting my scientific results in the learned journals from time to time, and reporting the actual trends on the real data? Don’t be childish.

jmac

What is your source of income, if you don’t shovel BS for the fossil fuel boys for a living?

monckton

My sources of income are none of your business. However, I have a number of patents and inventions; I write; and I have saved thriftily.

I take it that you have no serious scientific point to make, as usual.

jmac

Serious scientific comments are made in serious scientific journals. BS on your patents, and cures for Aids, etc…

Everybody knows you are paid shill for the fossil fuel boys. Have you ever received money (donations as you like to call them) from tobacco and fossil fuel companies?

monckton

I take it that you have no serious scientific point to make. And I note your contempt for the sick people who have been helped (at great cost to me) by the medication I am researching.

And what evidence do you have that I am “paid by the fossil-fuel boys”? Or that I have ever been paid by any of them? None.

Besides, my arguments, unlike those of the climate Communists, are set out in detail, with references, where anyone can verify them. That is how science is done. And my research shows, definitively, that the rate of global warming predicted by the IPCC in 1990 has not come to pass; is not coming to pass; and will not come to pass. So, if you are unable to make any scientific points, don’t waste your time here.

jmac

To answer the same question again. Serious scientific comments are made in serious scientific journals. What is sad is that you call others “climate-Communists” but then have the audacity to publish in a journal in a Communist country.

Ah, so you are entirely incapable of producing a single scientific argument that stands up, so you recycle old internet trash as though that were going to advance your argument. Must try harder.

Meanwhile, the world continues to fail to warm at anything like the predicted rate; there has been no landfalling Atlantic hurricane of Cat 3 or more in a decade, the longest hurricane drought in recorded history; global sea-ice shows little change either in extent or in trend; hurricanes, tropical cyclones and typhoons are neither more numerous nor more intense nor longer in duration than for the past 150 years; the area of the globe under drought has been falling for 30 years; sea level is barely rising, and can only be made to rise by an entirely artificial glacial isostatic adjustment; in any event the sea-level satellites show less sea-level rise than the intercalibration errors between them, which means there is no statistically-significant rise at all; and it would in any event be 10-100 times costlier to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to it the day after tomorrow, even if predicted warming had occurred, which it hasn’t. Like, get with the picture, man: it’s not a picture of apocalypse, now, is it?

jmac

Who would want to waste time listening to you about science?

Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath.

The list of diseases cured by Monckton’s miracle tonic expands from time to time. At one point he claimed, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI.” At another time he said, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.” Maybe some of you physicians out there can help me interpret this, but it looks to me like Monckton is claiming that his Wonder Cure will 1) wipe out any virus without harming the patient, and 2) cure auto-immune disorders that may (or may not) have initially been triggered by a viral infection. It is unclear to me whether bacterial infections are supposed to be affected since, for instance, food poisoning could be caused by either. [UPDATE: Monckton apparently is saying the miracle cure should be effective against both viral and bacterial infections, as well as prions.]

That is off topic. A civilized person, one who was not being paid to disrupt these threads, would wish us well with our research, for it has benefited many and, if we can prove it to publishable standard, could help millions more.

Meanwhile, back at the topic of the head posting, there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months.

Robert

Human trials?
Could we get the info on the studies?

“..have been helped (at great cost to me) by the medication I am researching.”

monckton

Yes, you can get all the information, anonymized of course in accordance with the law: but only when we have concluded our researches and have proved (i.e. tested) the claims in the patents. If they prove out (some will, some won’t, as is usually the way with these things), the research will be published in a leading medical journal – indeed, one paper on an aspect of our research appeared in Nature some years ago, – and at that time you will be able to read the results of our research, and you will demand to know which paper, and you will be told, two or three times, and you will go on demanding to be told the reference.

But your paid trolling, and your evident contempt for the sick people whose lives have been transformed by our approach, will not stop us from continuing our researches. Till those researches are concluded, we make no claims.

Robert

Ah, so nothing substantive….
What
A
Surprise. 😉

monckton

1. The subject is off topic. 2. The law does not permit us to make claims: the most I have said is that we are researching a method of treating infectious diseases and have had some promising results. Beyond that I cannot and will not go until we have proved the patent and published. If you don’t like the law, don’t whine: work to change it. In the meantime, I’m abiding by it. Get over it, and get back on topic, and show a little more respect for the sick people we are trying to help.

Bickmore is an unreliable source. We make no claims. Get back on topic.

There has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months (RSS); 18 years 6 months (UAH); and 11 full years (the entire record: ARGO). The models and the IPCC did not predict that. And that is the central problem for the climate Communists, which is why they are trying so desperately to change the subject.

Robert

Perhaps curently. “Make”
But until you can refute the cited material in Bickmore, ‘made’ seems acurate.
So maybe another example of the rhetoric you Ned do to suporting your assertions.

monckton

Off topic. Asked and answered. Get over it ,

monckton

Otiose repetition is the hallmark of the petty mind. Asked and answered.

Meanwhile, the world is not warming anything like as fast as predicted. That’s the main point you now seem uncommonly anxious to shy away from.

Robert

“predicted”
Show us the ‘prediction’.

monckton

Do’t be silly. Asked and answered. The prediction is clearly set out and explained, with all necessary references, in the head posting, as you have already been told. Grow up.

Robert

Where in ipcc do they say predict?
And then show that single number

Quotes?
Gone missing.

Citation?
Gone missing

” Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. ” D.Moynihan

monckton

For at least the dozenth time, the IPCC’s word “predict”, together with the amount of warming predicted, from a direct citation, including the page number, is available if you will only read the head posting. You have made hundreds of comments here without having read it. That is the hallmark of the paid climate Communist. Never mind the truth: just make up any old garbage and pretend there’s a “consensus” in support of it. Well, read the head posting. Don’t be pathetic.

Robert

Quote. And cite.
Where does IPCC say “predict”
Where does IPCC use a single number in a “prediction”?

“..the paid climate Communist. “

monckton

The paid climate-Communist halfwit should read the head posting, where all the references it requests are provided.

Robert

“paid climate-Communist halfwit”

monckton

I was too generous. Make that “paid climate-Communist lackwit”. Really, the scientific content of “Robert”‘s posts has hit a new low, even by the awful standards of the climate-Communist trolls who are paid to sneer at anyone who dares to question the Party Line. Go and learn some elementary math and science, and then actually read the head posting – or, rather, get someone to translate it into words of on syl-la-ble and read it to you. Then you might begin to understand the truth rather than hissing at it like a goose the day before Thanksgiving. And whatever you do, make sure you wear gloves when you go out, or you’ll bark your knuckles on the rough tarmac as you drag them along.

The world has not warmed for 18 years 9 months. Get used to it.

Robert

“…bark your knuckles on..”

Robert

We note your “head posting ( perhaps that is where they are compiled?), refers to only one scenario and even there ipcc provides a range.
Yet you insist on “predict” ( w ‘prediction’, used 50 times in your “head posting” ( is that where your numbers come from?)
And a single number. WhatsUpWithThat level of science?

The rate of warming predicted by the IPCC in 1990 was 1.0 [0,7, 1.5] Celsius from 1990 to 2025. From 1990 to the present, the warming has been 0.27 degrees.

On the much-adjusted terrestrial tamperature records, there has been 0.8 degrees’ warming since 1950 (HadCRUT4), with 0.1 C from 1750-1850 (estimated from the Central England Temperature Record), making 0.9 degrees since 1750. It is the value since 1750 that McGrath is talking about: and, as far as I know, the BBC is not a peer-reviewed journal.

Are you able to cite a single article in any journal that tries to maintain that there has been nearly 1 degree of warming since 1990? No, I thought not. You have mentioned McGrath and his reckoning since 1750 in the hope of fraudulently misleading readers. You have again failed. Now, produce a proper reference or abandon your assertion that I am wrong that the rate of global warming predicted by the iPCC in 1990 has not come to pass.

Robert

Not a “the”. Not “predicted”.

“The rate of warming predicted by the IPCC ..”
And again, no citations…..

What
A
Surprise

monckton

Asked and answered. Otiose repetition is the hallmark of the small mind.

That is off topic. That you are paid sums of that order is undeniable – unless, of course, you are willing to tell us who you are. But then, if you had made as much of a fool of yourself as you have, you would not wish anyone to know who you are (except, perhaps, your climate-Communist paymasters).

My repeated assertions that you are paid, and handsomely, to disrupt these threads with silly, repetitive and often hate-filled comments are entirely credible, because who but a paid troll would want to waste his time trying to disrupt these threads. You are self-evidently incapable of maintaining a scientific discussion even at high-school level: why, then, try to mess about here? You convince no one: but you provide a handy punch-bag for me, because when you fail to make a scientific point, as you nearly always do, I can point out again that the world is not warming at anything like the rate predicted by the IPCC; all who are watching can see that you have entirely lost the argument but are plodding on with the same futile repetitions; and each time you continue, they realize that you are indeed paid, and handsomely, to try to discredit the unassailable facts in the head posting. The climate scare is over. Tough luck for you and your paymasters: hurrah for the rest of us.

And what has DDT got to do with global warming? Oh, of course, silly me. It was the environmental socialists that had DDT effectively banned just at the point at which the malaria parasite had been all but wiped out. Annual deaths from malaria had fallen to 50,000, and rose to 1 million or thereby after the ban, and have stayed there ever since. Something like 50 million have been killed by that stupid ban, but the Left cannot admit its catastrophic mistake, based on Rachel Carson’s silly book, with its series of elementary errors.

DDT should now be encouraged for use indoors, where the worst threat from malaria occurs. Out of doors it is less effective, and there is a risk that mosquitoes will acquire immunity to it if it is too widely deployed outdoors.

The environmental socialists were wrong about DDT, and they are wrong about the climate. They are wrong about just about everything. But they will never admit it.

But they are really, really upset with me for showing, month by month, just how wrong their predictions about global warming were. Which is why so many paid trolls have screeched and blubbered and jabbered here. Their incoherence and their evident lack of any scientific knowledge is an advertisement to everybody as much of the utter bankruptcy of the case as of the malevolence with which they pursue it.

jmac

Just showing the folks some info about you LORD Monckton. There is lots more, but I have to quit for the day. Will be back tomorrow. 🙂

Monckton represented himself to members of the U.S. Congress as a member of the U.K. House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament.) When people started pointing out that he doesn’t appear on the official list of members, however, he started saying that he is a member “without a seat or vote.” When queried, the House of Lords responded that there is no such thing as a member without a seat or vote, and Lord Monckton had never been a member because he inherited his title (Viscount) in 2006, after all but 92 hereditary peers had been barred from membership in the House of Lords since 1999. When asked to respond about this misrepresentation by members of Congress, Monckton basically acknowledged that the British government doesn’t recognize him as a member of the House of Lords, but claimed that they’re wrong because his “Letters Patent” that granted his title to the family (and presumably mention membership in the House of Lords) had never been revoked by specific legislation. He said that the Lord President of the Council in the House of Lords had admitted that letters patent could only be annulled by specific legislation. However, Tim Lambert actually looked up what the Lord President of the Council said, and it turns out that she used the House of Lords Act 1999 as an example of legislation that altered the effect of Letters Patent. In other words, she said the exact opposite of Monckton’s claim. UPDATE: I should have mentioned that Monckton has also gone about using a logo that it quite similar to that of Parliament. Derek at Friends of Gin and Tonic sent an inquiry to the House of Lords Information Office about Monckton’s claim to be a member and his use of the logo, and they responded that, “The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof.” UPDATED UPDATE: Leo Hickman at The Guardian followed up on this with the House of Lords, and found that it’s just possible Monckton could do prison time. We can only hope, but it appears that Monckton may be quietly backing down! In his latest post on the Watts Up With That? blog, Monckton has changed his logo to a gaudy coronet, rather than the gaudy coronet and pink portcullis. ANOTHER UPDATE: Monckton is still claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, and he has added the portcullis back into his logo (although with wavy chains instead of straight). Now the House has taken the step of publishing a “cease and desist” letter on their website. Full story by Leo Hickman in The Guardian. Here is a nice summary of the legal arguments that have been advanced.

Off topic again. Seems that you have abandoned the climate argument. I am a member of the House, without the right to sit or vote, and will continue to use my logo until Garter King of Arms says it is registered to someone else, and there is nothing the defalcating Clerk of the Parliaments can do about it.

Robert

So, another admission you don’t have any evidence….

“That you are paid sums of that order is undeniable – unless, of course, you are willing to tell us who you are.”

monckton

Everyone knows you are paid. That is one of many reasons why you are unwilling to say who you are.

Meanwhile, back on topic, the climate scare continues to collapse as global temperatures fail to rise at anything like even the least rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990.

Robert

Hmmm, better tell the IRS …
And my bank
And explain why I ride a bike to go to the market instead of driving a Tesla.

monckton

No point in trying to conceal how well your climate-Communist paymasters rewarded you, until recently, for your loyalty to their pathetic cause. But they’ve no doubt noticed the remarkably low quality of your responses here.

Only 0.5 degrees’ global warming is expected by 2100, using mainstream considerations. That’s not a cause worth any climate-Communist money. So they must have other, ulterior motives. And so – if your claim that are not paid is any less mendacious than anything else you claim – must you.

Robert

“No point in trying to conceal how well your climate-Communist paymasters rewarded you…”

Robert

Might want to run that sentence by your tutor….

“And so – if your claim that are not paid is any less mendacious than anything else you claim – must you.”

monckton

Robert is no doubt as unfamiliar with the classical device known to students of ancient Greek as the parenthetical gar clause. The sentence to which with characteristic ignorance he objects is a fine instance of such a clause.

Robert

Yup. I don’t speak no greek…

Interesting, though how T. Jefferson, A.Lincoln, W. Churchill, etc were able to use classical rhetorical techniques in sentences that the average reader could understand.

monckton

The average reader can understand me just fine. But a climate-Communist troll cowering terrified behind anonymity is paid not to understand. That is why he has not even read the head posting yet, or he would not keep on and on demanding references that are already there in black and white, and occasionally even in color.

Robert

More conspiracy…” a climate-Communist…paid not to understand…”

Robert

And in a jump the shark effort we get conspiracy theory mission creep…..

“That’s not a cause worth any climate-Communist money. So they must have other, ulterior motives. “

monckton

Well. why is it worth anyone’s while to worry about just 0.5 degrees’ warming by 2100? That is all that mainstream science would lead us to expect, on a business-almost-as-usual scenario. And even 0.5 degrees is probably an exaggeration. Have a look, for instance, at the Lorentzian and Voigt line-shape equations used in the models. They’ve borrowed these equations from real physics, not realizing that the equations are approximations that assume instantaneity in the excitation-deexcitation collisions between photons and CO2 molecules in the principal absorption bands, particularly at the far wings where most of the forcing occurs, leading to an overstatement of the CO2 forcing and hence of climate sensitivity on all timescales by 40%. That takes us down to 0.3 degrees’ warming spread over the next four generations.

And what if Professor Ray Bates, an expert on feedbacks in the climate, is right in his recent Moscow talk, in which he says feedbacks must be net-negative, giving a maximum equilibrium climate sensitivity of 0.4 degrees? Or Dr David Evans’ reaching precisely the same result by a different but related method? Or Lindzen and Choi (2009, 2011), who found climate sensitivity below 0.7 degrees? Or Spencer & Braswell (2010, 2011) ditto? In general, there is a massive movement in the journals towards far lower climate sensitivity. Even the IPCC is beginning to recognize this.

So, given how uncertain it has now become that our influence on the climate is or ever could lead to dangerous or significant warming, why are the climate-Communists so insistent on using it as a half-baked excuse for more totalitarianism and less democracy? The Left are going to be ever more severely damaged in their credibility as the rate of global warming continues greatly to undershoot the IPCC’s predictions,.

Robert

Prof . Irwin Corey does a better parody …..

Robert

Almost a citation!

“recent Moscow talk”

monckton

Don’t be childish. I’ve already told you that all you have to do is contact Professor Bates and ask for a summary of his talk. Now, why do you go on and on asking for references when they’ve already been given to you. Get off your wobbly bottom and contact the Professor. But there’d be no point: you have an insufficient education in the physics of dynamical systems to understand a word he’s saying.

Robert

“No point in trying to conceal how well your climate-Communist paymasters rewarded you,”

Robert

Yeah, I had noticed the BBC, Guardian, NYTimes, NPR, have all stopped writing about ACC…

The dead horse Global Warming is indeed being flogged in the Marxstream media: but since when did they constitute peer-reviewed science? Where are your scientific references in refutation of the head posting? Or of the other points I have made to you here? BBC? Guardian? You cite these numbskulls as though they were authorities?

Robert is indeed lamentably unable to cite any sources for his opinions when asked to do so. Fortunately, the large number of references in the head posting, demonstrating each stage of the argument meticulously, make up for his scandalously unscientific failure to back up his viewpoint with references. And he is indeed justifiable in describing himself as the “resident namecaller”. After all, it is so safe, isn’t it, to cower behind a coward’s security blanket of anonymity and sneer at his betters.

Well, there are many advantages to Robert’s high-school silliness – and what can one expect from an overpaid 18-year-old climate-communist troll, starry-eyed in his uncritical belief in the Party Line and entirely unwilling and unable to consider any evidence to the contrary, however well-referenced that evidence may be. One advantage is that those who read these threads are commenting to me that they now understand my frustration at the level of robotic stupidity to which the hard, Communist Left has reduced the majority of its faithful followers. They are astonished at the small clutch of paid trolls continuing to make the same silly, unreferenced, trivial, futile, ignorant points over and over and over again. And they are learning – even those who might otherwise have doubted whether the skeptics were right and the climate-Communists wrong – that they need doubt no longer. The climate Communists, as evidenced by their lamentable performance on these threads, are self-evidently wrong about just about everything.

The other priceless advantage is that Marc Morano, our distinguished host here, is paid in accordance with the number of hits his site attracts, and is paid still more in accordance with the number of comments it attracts. The trolls, by writing their hundreds of driveling comments here, are bankrolling ClimateDepot. That is one of the reasons why, when I am ill as I am at present, I am prepared to take the time patiently to answer the trolls’ absurdities. Of course, if they make sensible scientific points and do so without the usual sneering and invective that is a hallmark of those who are of the Devil, I am happy to provide straightforward answers. But if they mess me around, I bite back. And every time any of us presses the “Post” button, Marc Morano makes another few dollars to keep the truth circulating.

Robert

More mocktonian Ipse dixit trickery.

Thanks for the continuing use of insulting, obfuscation, rhetoric, and unsupported asertions.

“Robert is indeed lamentably unable to cite any sources for his opinions when asked to do so. “

monckton

Well, where are the scientific sources that say the world has warmed at least as fast as the IPCC’s central prediction in 1990, and why do you think those sources are right? Because of their “authority”? The scientific approach is built on questioning the “authority” of the “consensus”, not in head-banging and unthinking deference to it.

Robert

You are the one making claims that fly in the face of virtually every paper, report, policy statement by major scientific organizations; that makes it your responsibility to support your claims.

, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” C. Sagan

monckton

I see you are unable to cite a single source. You merely hand-wave about “policy statements by major scientific organizations”. But it is not the job of scientific organizations to make policy statements. And how many of those policy statements have been peer reviewed? Nary a one, I’ll warrant. So you are unable to support with peer-reviewed evidence your foolish claim that the rate of global warming has exceeded, rather than fallen well short of, the IPCC’s prediction in 1990.

You have childishly quibbled over the word “predict”, though that – if you had bothered to read the head posting – is the word the IPCC itself used in 1990. You have demanded references, over and over again, but they are all in the head posting, and you refuse to give references for your own climate-Communist crackpot theories, other than “major scientific organizations”.

Since you are making extraordinary claims that the data do not show what they obviously do show, you must produce some evidence. You have failed and failed and failed again to do so. And you have failed and failed and failed again to provide proper evidence of your own on request. Not exactly grown-up conduct, is it? One realizes that you are still a teenager, and one makes some allowances, but you are very well paid by your climate-Communist masters to disrupt these threads, and one would have thought you would have become more competent at it. Anyway, as i have said, your stupidity is making lots of money for Marc Morano: the comment-count has just crossed one of the advertising trigger-points for thousands of dollars in extra revenue. I won’t tell you where the next break-point is, but it’s not far a way, and if this thread makes it, Marc makes not thousands but tens of thousands. So keep at it – though it would be helpful if you would be a little less teenagerish and a little more adult in your replies.

Robert

Where? Quote and cite.

” So you are unable to support with peer-reviewed evidence your foolish claim that the rate of global warming has exceeded…”

Robert

With less than 1k of comments that are hosted on another site, …
“your stupidity is making lots of money for Marc Morano: the comment-count has just crossed one of the advertising trigger-points for thousands of dollars in extra revenue. ”

Another site that oft crows about hits: wuwt.

monckton

Well, WUWT has had a quarter of a billion hits in its few years of existence. Maybe there are some climate-Communist sites to match that, but I do not know of any.

But that is off topic. The topic is the absence of the predicted catastrophic manmade warming for 18 years 9 months. You have no answer to that scientific fact.

Robert

Hmmm, let’s see. A namecalling, blotivating, blogger. Or every major scientific organization, 97% of the papers, a long history of published research,
.
I don’t need to argue the science, it is enough to show the idiocy of your claims:

Robert monckton a day ago
“Environmentalist Socialism killed 50 million with the hideously msiconceived ban on DDT”
1 Edit View in discussion
Robert
Robert monckton a day ago
“paid climate-Communist trolls”
“climate-communist trolls paid to disrupt these threads”
1 Edit View in discussion
Robert
Robert monckton a day ago
“paid climate-Communist trolls”
1 Edit View in discussion
Robert
Robert monckton a day ago
“climate-Communist technique ”
“Never mind: we rapidly approach the trigger-point at which Climate Depot makes tens of thousands of dollars because the comments have been so numerous. ”
“climate-Communist advocacy groups pay you to be futile..”
“global warming has not at any point happened at the predicted rate..”

“You have no answer to that scientific fact.”

monckton

The scientific fact is that there has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months.

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency

When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?

Relevance

Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?

Authority

What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?

Accuracy

Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic?

Purpose

Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?

Asked and answered. Don’t be childishly repetitive. Linking to climate-Communist news sources and rent-seeking bureaucracies rather than to the data and to the learned journals is the action of a paid climate-Communist, not a seeker after truth.

Is the paid climate-Communist website “skeptical” “science” peer reviewed? No. The IPCC predicted in 1990 what the head posting said it had predicted. It used the words “We predict”. It made its predictions on the basis of what it called “substantial confidence” that its models had captured all the major features of the climate. It was wrong. Its predictions were exaggerations – on all datasets the actual rate of warming in the quarter-century since 1990 is below the least estimate made by the IPCC in that year.

The way real science works, if predictions are made and they fail, it is not scientific to try to pretend they did not fail, or that no predictions were made.

Robert

Yup, you’ve shown us that the science has been getting better in each Assessment report. 25 years of progress,while you have to use rhetoric in your eforts to make your point.

monckton

The predictions have been reduced, but so has the observed warming rate. The discrepancy between prediction and reality remains enormous.

Robert

“..high-school silliness – and what can one expect from an overpaid 18-year-old climate-communist troll, starry-eyed in his uncritical belief in the Party Line ..”

Robert

So, a human trial – with one subject -for your cure?
“That is one of the reasons why, when I am ill as I am at present, I am prepared to take the time patiently to answer the trolls’ absurdities. “

monckton

Off topic and characteristically malevolent. I am not suffering from an infection, so my treatment for infections would not be a sensible treatment in the circumstances, now, would it? Don’t be childish.

One does not deal with the failure of global warming to occur at anything like the predicted rate by linking to external climate-Communist websites one of which is run by a crook and the other by a lunatic. Are these your “peer-reviewed sources”? Not surprising your brain seems to have been lobotomized, if these are your trusted “authorities”. Must try harder.

Robert

Pennies or maybe parts of one… if one is on the climdep site

“And every time any of us presses the “Post” button, Marc Morano makes another few dollars to keep the truth circulating.”

monckton

Dollars, not pennies. Keep on with the futile comments. They’re a great financial help.

Robert

Recommend
Hey, just noticed this! My CRAAP post is on top!

Sort by Best

Join the discussion…
Attach
Post as Robert
−
Avatar
Robert
2 days ago
Some tools to use when analysing the op above

How to Evaluate Resources

The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation

Robert

So M.M. is paying you?1
“They’re a great financial help.”

monckton

No. I’m paid $2,155,000 a year, plus expenses, by a group of governments tired of the hard-Left propaganda of the climate Communists. I’m worth much more, of course, but one must do one’s duty to the truth, however little one is paid.

Robert

Thanks! Posting that as a new thread!

Robert

Hmmm, a nice round 2 attached to what you claim I’m paid….

Oh, wait. Does that include expenses? According to you, I get 35K.

Oh, wait. Again. Is that b4 or after the recent Canadian election?

monckton

Oops! That was a mistake. I’m paid £20,155,000 a year by the Interplanetary High Council. Plus warp-drive supplement.

Robert

Ahh, more Ipse dixit… thanks.

“..commenting to me that they now understand my frustration at the level of robotic stupidity to which the hard, Communist Left …”

Well, it’s more solid than your evidence that you’re not paid $155,000 a year plus expenses to argue dishonestly and fraudulently against your betters on matters of which you plainly know nothing except the Party Line. I suggest that you complete high school before making any more attempts to intervene in matters where you are so gluggingly out of your depth.

The head posting is really quite simple, if only you will find the time to read it. There has been no global warming for 18 years 9 months. That is the inconvenient truth. There is no, repeat no, basis for alarm about our influence on the climate. The rate of warming in the quarter-century since 1990 is little more than a third of the IPCC’s then central estimate. And there are very good scientific reasons, in the laws of physics and in the models’ errors, why we should not expect to see much in the way of global warming over the remainder of this century – if ever. This is a dead scare, scientifically speaking.

Robert

Maybe, if you post the missing citations and some documentation of your cures, I’ll post a scan of my IRS returns

“…more solid than your…”

monckton

As you well know, every fact in the head posting is nailed down with a reference to the data. And I have already explained that my medical research is off topic and that no claims will be made unless and until the research is successfully concluded.

Robert

Ipse dixit.
Thanks!

Robert

So, trust you? O trust the ipcc and the major scientific organizations who agree with what the ipcc reports…
What a tough decision… /s

“..there is no, repeat no, basis for alarm about our influence on the climate.”

monckton

Only a totalitarian would parade a head-banging acceptance of the authority of the governing power without asking any of the right questions. A libertarian, on the other hand, would ask whether the IPCC and its supporters had been right in their earlier predictions before believing their later ones. He would notice the startling discrepancy between the IPCC’s predictions and the far less exciting observed reality, and he would do what most ordinary people are now doing: he would not worry about the IPCC’s credibility or my credibility: he would look at the data and make up his own mind. That you are incapable of doing this illustrates how much of a slave to your paymasters you have become. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. All you can do is parrot the Party Line and kowtow to the high priests of the New Superstition. Contemptible, really, but then what can one expect of one who is too abjectly cowardly to reveal who he is?

Robert

The “right questions”:

Evaluating Web Sites Using the CRAAP Test

When you search for information, you’re going to find lots of it. But is it accurate and reliable? You will have to determine this for yourself, and the CRAAP Test can help. This list of questions does not necessarily include everything you will need to know. Different criteria will be more or less important depending on your situation or need.
Currency: The timeliness of the information
Relevance: The importance of the information for your needs
Authority: The source of the information
Accuracy: The reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the informational content
Purpose: The reason the information exists

Don’t be boringly repetitive. You have cut and pasted references to the notion that the source of scientific information is relevant to determining its reliability. In logic and in the scientific method, however, the argument from appeal to authority has no place. The reason why what I write is heeded despite the relentless attempts of paid climate-Communist trolls to damage my reputation is that it is so self-evidently true. Until I began regularly checking to find out whether global warming was happening as predicted, no one had bothered to check. It is now known to all that global warming is not happening at the predicted rate (and has recently not been happening at all). Now, that fact has not become part of the common currency of the climate debate because of any “authority” from me as its source: for I merely provide the data so that anyone can easily verify it for himself – if he bothers to read the head posting before posting hundreds of childish and hilariously off-beam attempts at criticizing what has neither been read nor understood.

So get used to the fact that argument from appeal to authority is a logical fallacy exposed as such by Aristotle 2350 years ago in his Sophistical Refutations. Get used to the fact that the argument from consensus is also a logical fallacy. Both of these are central to totalitarian thinking, but they have no place in civilized scientific discourse. So don’t waste any more time trying to trash my reputation. My reputation is entirely unimportant. What is important is the truth, and those who have eyes to see and ears to hear and brains to check can look closely at my postings and see for themselves that, in saying that the world has not been warming at anything like the predicted rate, I am right.

Robert

“source of scientific information ”
Actually, the links to CRAAP are for readers reading your claims.
You know. The ones without quotes or citations.

monckton

Don’t be childish. The head posting is full of references, if only you would be bothered to read it. So your whining that there are no references is manifestly false – by which I mean that all of the large numbers now enjoying your self-humiliation can see that it is false, simply by doing what you have not done – looking at the head posting. And the dozens of links to the leftist nonsense about whether the “author” of a scientific work has “credentials” merely confirm the depth of your ignorance of how the scientific method works. I suggest you read al-Haytham, or Popper’s masterly Logik der Forschung. Then you will have some idea of the fatuous and pusillanimous absurdity of your present – and clingingly desperate – appeals to the supposed “authority” of non-peer-reviewed political statements by scientific advocacy groups.

Appeal to authority has no, repeat no, place in true science. Your continuing to advocate it and to practise it merely shows off the abyssal depth of your ignorance. But then, your climate-Communist paymasters do not pay you $155,000 a year plus expenses to wise up, or you’d become more skeptical and less crashingly naive.

Robert

Where is your rebuttal?

monckton

Read the head posting. Read the rebuttal at WattsUpWithThat.com.

And get back on topic. Everyone knows that because I have been effective in countering the fraudulent elements of the global-warming scam I have been made a target by environmental-Communist advocacy groups and paid hacks such as yourself.

Meanwhile, no global warming for 18 years 9 months.

Robert

Not a surprise, but neither address the question.
“Read the head posting. Read the rebuttal at WattsUpWith……”

Robert

What evidence do you have that you are not still beating your life partner?

“… your evidence that you’re not paid $155,000 a year..”

monckton

The world continues not to warm very much. That is a problem for those who decided, prematurely and often for political and financial rather than scientific reasons, that they would take the wrong side in this debate. One realizes how Robert must feel as he learns from these exchanges just how wrong is the Party Line to which his paymasters have devoted so much of their cash and he so much of his valueless time.